Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Additional Commentary and References


What is the relationship between greatly increasing resources devoted towards a standing military and supporting the cause of individual liberty?
  A strong decentralization.viewpoint:  

A strong centralization.viewpoint:
War is historically a great enemy of li-  
We can never enjoy freedom without
berty. It encourages authoritarianism.    
a strong military to secure our interests
"Defense" squeezes out private sector,  
Defense spending increases R&D, stimu-
increases government dependency  
lating spinoff technology to private sector
A global military is antithetical to early  
Military helps Americans from all walks
  American citizen soldier concepts    
of life practice patriotism and learn liberty

Sample argument: (libertarian) view: "War is the health of the state." "Statism" and military regimentation are fundamentally incompatible with liberty, which implies respect for property rights, voluntary exchange, and absence of coercion from the state. War typically involves grand theft of the resources of other countries as well as massive property destruction. Leaders use war as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, often under bogus pretexts. Government tends to expand and make more people dependent on it through its rationing programs and arms industries. The aftermath of war also tends to work against the private sector, since the government is typically saddled with a large debt and a meddlesome central bank. Paying off war debt means higher taxes and inflation (a hidden tax) that transfers wealth from private hands. This also conditions the public to accept spendthrift government and central bank intervention. Civil liberties curtailed during war are typically not fully restored in peace time, creating a ratchet up effect after each war. War propaganda also glorifies government spending on research and development, when in fact it is usually very inefficient by private sector standards. It is a sad day when the civilian community becomes so culturally fragmented and disoriented that it feels a need to lean on military "culture." Militia members who fought for home and hearth during the pioneer era were qualitatively very different from the professional mercenary soldiers who fight for the global super state today. The real history of the Spanish American War and World War I suggests that America could have stayed out of both conflicts, and avoided triggering many of the evils that followed. We still have two big oceans to protect us, and our best "defense" is to be a good neighbor, not a bully. We need to secure our border with Mexico and other sources of out of control Third World immigration first and rebuild our private sector domestic industry before we go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
. . .

Sample argument: (authoritarian) view: Even in the early 19th century, Americans had to fight abroad against the Barbary Pirates. As a maritime nation, Americans must fight around the world in support of global trade. America's massive overseas interventions in World Wars I and II and during the Cold War must have been for a good reason. We learned that we must proactively lead the world and not wait for problems to come to our shores. To protect global freedom, we must show the world that we mean business with global military might. The world is too dangerous a place for us to take any risk that we could get caught unprepared. Modern war demands long lead times to develop advanced hardware and achieve economies of scale, and one cannot realistically expect to create all of this overnight to handle advanced enemies. We also require extensive investment in staff resources and intelligence activities to handle the complexities of a modern defense establishment. Military spending not only defends the free world, but plays an important role in creating jobs, It keeps the economy stimulated. It funds important research and development programs that promote technological leadership. The military can provide important education benefits and job experience. It promotes valor, patriotic idealism, and respect for law and order. It brings order and structure to a society that has been badly fragmented by permissiveness, drug culture, broken homes, and other social ills. Wearing the uniform builds personal pride and motivates people to become better citizens. It puts weak males through stressful training and helps turn them into real men. By strengthening the civilian community in this way, Americans become that much better at supporting freedom and liberty at home as well as abroad. Ultimately there is no conflict, because each branch of the U.S. Armed Forces is "family" right up there with mom, home, the flag, and apple pie. We only owe it to ourselves to support a big strong military at all costs.

(last updated 7 Aug 2007 by William B. Fox)

Regarding the decentralized viewpoint:

My guess is that most Americans who take this quiz will tend to respond on the side of the pro-centralization, pro-militarization argument. This is because America has become a heavily militarized society where its controlled national media frequently promotes a very twisted, jingoistic, comic-book level of political understanding regarding the proper role of military in a healthy, balanced society. This is particularly true now that our Zionist-dominated media is banging the drums for more war to take down the enemies of Israel in the Middle East. Furthermore, Americans have become accustomed to tolerating a government that routinely runs roughshod over early American citizen-soldier militia concepts while simultaneously militarizing local police forces, subtly altering their relationship with the common citizenry for the worse. Americans have also been brainwashed to accept "war is good" economic fallacies by a vast military-industrial complex that thrives on massive pork spending and special privileges. They also tolerate imperial U.S. Presidents who routinely thumb their noses at Congress and usurp the constraints made on their war-making powers by the U.S. Constitution. Worse yet, they even tolerate foreign military adventures fought for alien interests that are often waged at the expense of America's legitimate national interests. (see High Priests of War by Michael Collins Piper). Because of all these kinds of factors, it behooves Americans to do some deep thinking about military realities.

Three very key issues on the libertarian side of this debate are:

a) How does "military" relate to a local community and grass roots politics?

(The short answer: "military" relates today in almost the exact opposite manner that it did in early America).

b) How does "military" compare to "government" in general?

(Short answer: Government basically consists of politics, force, and bureaucracy. It has almost nothing to do with sound economics. All of these things are generally incapable of successful entrepreneurial calculation, that is, creating market-competitive products with a trend of increasing quality and steadily lower costs. Government growth squeezes out the private sector that creates the truly productive jobs and instead creates waste, mal investment, and major economic distortion. "Military" is essentially armed government, that is, armed force and armed bureaucracy and armed politics. Therefore, a large standing military generally has the same negative economic impact on a productive economy as any other form of large standing government.)

b) What is the real impact of a large military establishment and war on an advanced industrial economy?

(Short answer: Large-scale modern wars tend to create vastly more economic destruction than any gains. They may be compared to purely destructive natural disasters such as tsunamis, hurricanes, and floods. It is a myth that World War II pulled America out of the Great Depression, and that Cold War spending or the massive current economic spending on the "war on terrorism" is really good for the underlying health of the American economy. These things do more to distort the economy and promote forms of mal investment than develop a truly productive base. These things are "good" for the underlying health of a truly productive economy only in the sense that more of a drug for a drug addict or eating only junk food to stave off hunger serve to buy time but fail to address deeper health problems).

Below I will provide some of the longer answers regarding these issues, as well as cite some important sources.

Some readers may infer from my commentary below that I am some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth anti-government and anti-military type. As a former dedicated U.S. government employee and U.S. Marine Corps officer I can vouch from personal example how this is not true. I think the key issue here is appropriateness. When performed in an appropriate capacity, I believe that both government service in general, and military service in particular, can be both very heroic and necessary. However, when performed in an inappropriate manner relative to the rest of society, these roles can be very toxic and destructive. In the long run, the private citizen does not do either his government or its military any favors by standing around and silently observing without protest as things get so out of balance that both entities finally require painful corrective measures.

How does "military" relate to a local community and grass roots politics?

It is important to have a long term historical, sociological perspective. Most early Americans were descended from Nordic and Celtic tribesmen, who since ancient times were characterized by homesteader societies that had a relatively large middle class of armed free men who owned their own land. Relative to other racial groups, they never really had a large aristocracy or permanent underclass of slave masses. Unlike so much of Asian history, where the despot would slaughter dissident individuals or punish his masses on whim if things went wrong, in most parts of northern of Europe it was more the other way around. Freeman frequently ousted bad or incompetent rulers.

In these traditional northern European tribal societies, being part of a homogeneous racial and cultural social fabric was the first priority, with military capabilities serving as an organic outgrowth of local community solidarity.

The pioneer communities that developed in early America were in many ways a resurgence of these more ancient forms. Early Americans had almost no central government by modern standards, and on a purely local level tended to take care of all the governmental and charitable functions that we associate today with the state and federal government. This included volunteer firemen, volunteer militia, and volunteer sheriff's deputies.

In early American pioneer communities, most able bodied men belonged to a militia. On relatively little notice, they usually had the ability to mount out and travel far distances across vast wilderness expanses and engage in successful military actions. Generally they fought in wars that directly served their personal interests, such as defending against Indian attacks, or adding to their land holdings on the frontier. Frequently the decision to make war took place on a local level.

One of the most classic examples in American military history of military decentralization involved the decision made by the leaders of the Watauga settlement of eastern Tennessee in 1780 to respond to a threat made by the British commander Patrick Ferguson to enter their territory and burn out dissident rebels. They mounted out the "over mountain man" militia that crossed the mountains and helped destroy Ferguson's force of British regulars and American Tories at King's Mountain, South Carolina. Along with the Battle of Saratoga in New York state, most historians generally consider this battle as a major turning point of the American Revolution.

This decision to do battle at King's Mountain, as well as later decisions to go fight various branches of the Cherokee nation further to the west (in one case involving a fight against Chickamauga Indians at Lookout Mountain near Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1782), came from the local leaders in the Watauga settlement. These ultimate decisions did not come from General George Washington, the Continental Congress, or anyone else outside their community.

It is true that the leaders of the Watauga settlement coordinated many of their military activities with other independent militias in western Virginia, western North Carolina, and western South Carolina. In some campaigns they responded to requests by General Nathaniel Greene, American commander in the Southern Theater. For example, a group of Wataugans fought at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, North Carolina and assisted in a campaign run by Francis Marion in South Carolina. Nevertheless, the military leadership of the Wataugans always retained a high degree of local autonomy.

From a broader political viewpoint, the ability to form a combat-effective local militia has tremendous social and political implications. War is extremely stressful. The creation of an effective fighting force typically usually requires an extensive social support network. The capacity to make war implies the ability to also enforce borders, collect taxes (ie. confiscate wealth under the threat of force), and become the monopolist on violence in a given territory, all of which are important functional definitions of a de facto "state."

Therefore, there is a high correlation between the capacity to form a combat-effective militia and the capability to form a functioning mini-state or mini-nation on a grass roots level. The ability of early Americans to form independent militia throughout the colonies was a critical factor in their ability to challenge British power in the American Revolution and create their own more localized political establishments. The local militia went hand in hand with the concept of "popular sovereignty," which is a government run "bottom up" from the people rather than the other way around where the people are subjugated to the whims of a select few ruling from the top down.

Getting back to the Watauga settlement example, here we see an interesting historical correlation between a functioning militia and the embryonic "state" in formation. One of the militia leaders, Isaac Shelby (1750-1826), was a leader at the convention that wrote a Constitution for Kentucky. The same year of that convention he became the first governor of the new state of Kentucky. Another leader of the Watauga militia, John Sevier (1745-1815), became the first and only governor of the "lost state" of Franklin. He was later elected six times as governor of Tennessee and elected four times as Tennessee's representative to the U.S. Congress.

In this social environment, the military is an organic outgrowth of a local community that has racial and ethnic unity and militia traditions.

Most American settlements retained a strong awareness of their European ancestral roots. New Englanders were homogeneously Protestant and heavily "Nordic." Most New Englanders were descended from Puritans who came from eastern England. Quite a few had ancestors who had served in the New Model Army under Oliver Cromwell in English Civil War. In fact, according to the The Cousins' Wars by Kevin Philips, about half of the relatively small all-male student body of the Harvard class of 1636 went back to England to fight on the side of Parliament.

Similarly, the Scots-Irish and German immigrants who predominated in the western frontier areas of the colonies not only had their own strong strong ethnic identities, but also their own militia traditions that also stemmed from the old country. James Webb claims in Born Fighting that the Scots-Irish provided about a third of the manpower for the Revolution.

Many German immigrants continued to speak German, so much so in fact that Benjamin Franklin once proposed to make German an official second language of the United States. Among other things, German immigrants provided the body guard for George Washington and contributed the long rifle (also known as the Pennsylvania and Kentucky Rifle) that proved decisive in many battles against British regulars.

Certainly all these groups provided important militia forces that were critical for the success of the American Revolution.

Today all of this has been completely turned on its head in America on virtually all social and political levels. Most white Americans today do not belong to any racially and ethnically homogeneous white communities with well-defined European cultural traditions or a strong ancestral memory. Most white Americans do not belong to a local militia. In fact, the memory of their ancestral militia traditions have been mostly flushed down the Orwellian memory hole in our government-funded schools and alien-controlled national media.

In the place of their ancestral memory, white Americans have been forced by heavy-handed federal laws into race-mixing with alien peoples in government jobs, the private work place, in schools, and even in their residential neighborhoods. Rather than feeling a sense of continuity and pride in the militia traditions of their white ancestors, white Americans are mesmerized by Jewish-controlled television which teaches them to feel guilty and shameful about simply being white.

The U.S. military itself has become thoroughly mixed up on a racial and ethnic level. I point out in my introduction to my reconciling opposing ideologies series that when President Harry Truman made his fateful decision to racially integrate the U.S. Armed Forces in the late 1940's, he actually moved to the political left of Stalin's Red Army on racial integration issues. The Soviets insisted on maintaining the racial and ethnic integrity of their units on the theory that men of shared ethnicity tend to be more cohesive and fight better.

The U.S. military frequently rotates its personnel from one duty station to another every few years before they can form deep social roots with any particular community of people in a particular geographic location. It has even been known to try to discharge racially conscious whites on the basis of their private conversations by accusing them of "racism" and "white supremacism." (I have some personal experience in regard to the latter. Back in 1990 I was put before an official Board of Inquiry with a U.S. Navy Captain as a defense counsel in an unsuccessful effort to get me ousted as a Major in the Marine Corps Reserves based upon the content of private conversations about America's illegal immigration crisis, Israel's deliberate attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, the fraudulent side of Holocaustianity, and the modern revitalization of indigenous Indo-European religion).

The late Dr. Revilo Oliver used to compare white Americans in the U.S. military today with the janissaries of the Ottoman empire. The janissaries were Caucasian children who were stolen away from their natural Christian parents. They were raised in special environment that brainwashed them into the Muslim religion and raised them as a professional military slave class with strict obedience to Islamic potentates. They were often used to fight for Ottoman interests against white Christians in places like the Balkans and in coastal states of the Mediterranean.

Military decisions in America today are usually never made on a local level. White Americans have been programmed to always look to the President of the United States as their maximum leader. This is true even when he steals his elections and acts like a Simian creature with a double digit IQ. White Americans have even been programmed to blindly obey their Federal Fuhrer when he runs roughshod over the Constitution, the Congress, the doctrines of Posse Comitatus and habeas corpus, and virtually every other measure designed to keep in check tyrannical exercise of executive power.

Our maximum leader George W. Bush even signed off on an Executive Order giving himself the right to directly control all National Guard units irrespective of the wishes of any state governors. This has has effectively severed any residual connection that the National Guard might still have with the early American militia concept.

Rather than fight to serve the interests of themselves and their immediate community, white Americans today are now ordered to fight and die for ideological abstractions in "no-win" imperial wars overseas that have nothing to do with their own local or national interests. These abstractions include such nebulous terms as "democracy' or "fighting terrorism" which usually mean whatever the power elite wants them to mean. The real power elite usually involves plutocratic Jewish supremacists who are very good at getting Americans to die in wars that have more to do with Jewish profiteering in war industries and Israel's interests in the Middle East than white American interests at home. This is why the U.S. Government will gladly expend massive military resources to secure the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, but will hardly lift a finger to prevent tens of millions of illegal Mexican immigrants from pouring across our Southwestern borders.

After U.S. military personnel get treated like dogs in crazy foreign wars, such as when they are exposed by criminal negligence to massive doses of agent orange or aerosolized depleted uranium, too many of them resign themselves to the idea that there must be some kind of hidden, mysterious wisdom behind the cause of their early deaths. They never bother to look closely at the Jewish supremacist aliens and their white trash puppets (to include their prostituted Congressmen) who occupy power centers in places like Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, and Tel Aviv.

When whites begin to move in the philosophical direction of forming a local militia, either by aggressively arming themselves or by adopting a highly dissident social philosophy, Federal agents looking to add notches to their political correctness gun stocks will often try to pounce on them like gangs of hungry vampire bats on little field heifers. Three famous examples include lethal and unconstitutional attack-dog actions on the Randy Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, the slaughter of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and the false flag operation demolition of the Oklahoma City Murrah Government building that used Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for a patsies.

Despite all of this, thousands of de facto well-armed militia are continually springing up like mushrooms across America. However, the irony here is that most of them are not white. As Tom Chittum observes in Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America, these militia consists of nonwhite gangs that are frequently involved in criminal activities such as the drug trade. They have tens of thousands of members across America, and are often better armed than local police. Quite a few of them are very racist and make no bones about being united in blood to promote Mexican, Negro, or Asian group genetic interests at the expense of the declining white population.

A second irony is that since ancient (and even pre-historic) times, the right to form a local militia was considered a very basic right of any freeman in northern European countries, very similar to his basic right to own and carry a sword, shield, spear, bow and quiver of arrows, cross bow, or whatever else it took to defend his homestead.

It was never any of the damn business of any central government whether or not a group of white people could voluntarily form their own local self-defense group. The fact that so many whites today are so hesitant to arm and organize themselves on a grass roots level only shows the extent to which they have been politically and ethnically "sterilized" and otherwise brainwashed by their alien-controlled TV programming and highly intrusive federal and state government regulations.

A third irony is that today we have massive evidence that the very federal agencies that white Americans have been programmed to depend on to defend them against criminals are not only not doing their jobs, but are in fact in bed with the very worst criminals in America. For example, in Final Judgment we learn how J. Edgar Hoover had a cozy relationship with Meyer Lansky, the Jewish boss of organized crime in America. In The Judas Goats we learn about how the FBI and local law enforcement groups have been in bed with the evil ADL (see the Rev Ted Pike archive for more details). More recently, rather than expose strong evidence for massive Mossad involvement in orchestrating the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon, the FBI has suppressed evidence. (However, in credit to the FBI, it has done some good work to expose and prosecute traitors such as Jonathan Pollard and Larry Franklin. I have no doubt that many parts of the FBI are staffed by genuinely patriotic, well-intentioned Americans. However, the point I wish to make here is that its track record has been pretty spotty in certain areas and it has been known to play both sides of the fence).

An effective "militia" encompasses much more than a certain number of armed men who attend meetings and walk around carrying guns. In fact, simply walking around in paramilitary attire while brandishing firearms as some kind of lifestyle exercise in and of itself is usually viewed by the general public as immature, politically counterproductive, and even threatening.

A healthy militia is the tip of the iceberg of a vast supporting civilian community where a healthy civilian political agenda always remains in control of the military agenda. It requires support of a substantial portion of the local business community. It requires the support of women folk who can treat the wounded and work under cover to report on the movements of the forces of central government tyranny. It entails political activists who continually raise consciousness within local communities in order to procure sources of political and logistical support as well as to create the groundwork for the election of militia-friendly local government. It also includes community-organizing efforts that bring local police over to the side of the local militia. The intimate knowledge that local police typically have of local affairs can make them either the greatest friend or one of the most dangerous enemies of local militia, depending on whose side they are on.

Seen from this perspective, rather than serving as some kind of bastion of "extremism," membership in a local militia should instead be considered a very normal and very healthy expression of local white community solidarity and viability. It is necessary to not only help protect its interests against aliens and predators, but also to serve as an ultimate bulwark against central government tyranny.

Using an ecological predator vs. counter predator model to understand the changing dynamics of American political institutions, the steady growth in the size and the degree of federal interventionism in the last 150 years may be viewed as cancer that has grown unchecked as the militia "immune system" in America has been steadily compromised. Local militia once existed as a vital counter predator to keep in check central government predatory tendencies towards ever more centralization, more corruption, and more generalized tyranny.

A major reason why we have so much corruption by corporate, government, and special interest group leaders in America today is that they believe that as long as they can hire slick lawyers to help them get off light in law suits, they can keep most of their ill-gotten loot and other perquisites. They believe that they can retire in luxury and no one will ever seriously come after them for their crimes. They think that most white American males have become such Casper milquetoasts that vigilante-style retribution is a thing of the past. And unfortunately they are usually right.

In contrast, back in the pioneer days when militia men were willing to cross mountain ranges and vast wilderness tracts to wreak vengeance on their enemies in hand-to-hand combat with rifle, sword, and hatchet, the top people in America tended to be more careful about how they treated the public. A failure to show "honor" back in those days had a much bigger downside. As one example, Alexander Hamilton, referred to as "the mephistophelean character of the American Revolution" by the late Dr. Murray Rothbard (he tried to reestablish the British-style mercantilism, central banking, and autocracy in America), got mortally wounded in a duel by anti-Federalist leader Aaron Burr.

When was the last time you ever saw an utterly treasonous, murderous, and criminal Jewish supremacist master of America who has stolen billions of dollars from the American public or who has helped to cover up a Mossad hit on a U.S. President or a missile strike on the Pentagon ever get taken out by a white leader?

How does "military" compare to "government" in general?

From an economic viewpoint, "military" is essentially an extension of government. Unfortunately that is not saying much for either the military or the civilian side of government once we grasp the reality that "government" and "sound economics" are usually mutually exclusive.

"Government" is fundamentally about politics, force, and bureaucracy. It's focus is usually negative in nature. It passes and enforces laws that punish people and curtail their behavior. It rarely has anything to do with anything that is truly creative and innovative, such as developing more useful and higher quality products at lower prices to better meet consumer demand in a free market.

George Washington once commented: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Leo Tolstoy said: "The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded."

Thomas Jefferson observed, "Let us not talk about the goodness of man [in government positions]...but bind him down in the chains of the Constitution."

In my centralized vs decentralized article, I explain how government has inverse "scalability." That is, while a certain amount of government may be necessary to protect and help regulate society, beyond a certain point in the growth of government it becomes more of a parasite than a producer. I describe how once government grows beyond a certain size, it tends to morph in stages from good government to ponzi government and then finally to evil government.

Throughout history, war has tended to give government its best excuse to ratchet up its power and influence over the citizenry while clamping down on civil liberties. Worse yet, once wars are over, governments frequently fail to restore the civil liberties that they have confiscated in wartime. Therefore, war often has an evil ratchet up effect against individual liberty.

In my discussion of classical liberalism and Northern European peoples in my environmental vs. genetics article, I quote James Madison on the relationship between war and government. He stated:

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honours and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both.

No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

The late libertarian author Harry Browne wrote an excellent book titled Why Government Doesn't Work. He explains that government gains its revenues by taxation, which ultimate means it makes it money at the point of a gun. (Stop paying all your taxes, inform the government that you are prepared to violently resist, and just see how long it takes before the SWAT teams arrive). The performance of specific government programs is typically delinked from the willingness of the public to submit to general taxation. Furthermore, once new government programs are in place, they are almost never cut back when they fail under normal conditions. Instead, we see a frequent pattern where government leaders typically lie about the real reasons why their programs fail. Worse yet, they typically add even more government programs and more government bureaucracy on top of failed programs. These programs typically fail as well, only compounding the problem further. And even worse still, as Harry Browne points out, government programs are typically so focused on fulfilling a political agenda regardless of the real world consequences that they often have a completely opposite effect compared to what was originally intended. If you read libertarian authors such as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (for example The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice) or James Bovard (for example Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty or Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen) it is somewhere between very sad and tragically comical how government programs repeatedly have an incredible capacity to boomerang and produce "blow back."

Compounding all of this further, demagogic politicians in a social democracies typically appeal to base emotions such as envy rather deal with sound free market economics. The famous French economist Frederic Bastiat once commented that "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else."

This political world is very different from private business owners who must engage in entrepreneurial calculation in the private sector. Entrepreneurial calculation means making reasonably accurate forecasts of demand for certain products and then figuring out a way to organize the factors of production to meet the demand in an economically viable (profitable) manner.

If small business owners are not sensitive to consumer preferences, they typically go out of business. They have a profit and loss incentive to trim waste and excessive staff. They also have a strong incentive to innovate to create better products than their competition. Unlike the taxation interaction between the public and their government, the financial transactions the public and businesses in a free market is voluntary.

Government bureaucrats who are often tightly focused upon serving specific duties within a tightly circumscribed functional area. They are usually politically sensitive in order to get a good subjective evaluation by their bureaucratic chieftains.

In contrast, small businesses people are more inclined to be generalists and use analytical intelligence. They typically consider a wide variety of factors such as new product development, marketing, and accounting control and how they interact with each other in order to create a viable economic operation that meets consumer needs.

From an economic viewpoint, the military has all of the same characteristics as government, except that it is armed. Therefore, the military is armed politics, armed force, and armed bureaucracy. Like its civilian government counterpart, has very little to do with sound economics or a capacity for successful entrepreneurial calculation. And of course more war usually means more military. This in turn means more government. This means more taxation that comes out of the hide of the private sector, which tends to atrophy as government takes over an increasingly greater share of the economy. In fact, government has grown from around 5% to over 50% of the economy in the last 150 years.

Simply understanding how the fundamental characteristics of government as compared to entrepreneurship should make us immediately suspicious whenever our political leaders claim that expanding government and the military during time of war is somehow good for our society's long term economic health.

What is the real impact of a large military establishment and war on an advanced industrial economy?

A broad section of the American public has been repeatedly misled by politicians, court historians, and controlled national media into believing that the underlying nature of war in and of itself helps to rebalance an ailing economy or is good for its long term health. For example, we frequently hear historians say "World War II brought America out of the Great Depression" (another myth I will get to later). During the Great Society era, we heard President Lyndon Johnson proclaim the high virtues of his "War on Poverty" while his court Keynesian economists saluted the alleged benefits of such warlike "stimulus" on building the American economy.

The general rule is that war in and of itself is inherently destructive of lives and property. It benefits humans only in the perverted sense that someone can rationalize a gain by getting hit by Tsunamis.

The exception to this general rule is that a relatively short war that enables a country to plunder substantial resources from another country with minimal losses to itself may indeed be very economically profitable for the victor. This is true. However, any economic gains are typically made despite the underlying nature of warfare, not because of it. This is particularly true in the era of "modern war" which has typically involved prolonged and exhaustive periods of total war that have considerable unintended consequences.

The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises commented in Human Action: "Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries."

Maybe a few people in the economy ranging from morticians, doctors, owners of war industries, and construction workers might find increased work following either a natural disaster or modern war, but the rest of the population suffers a tremendous loss of resources. The overall impact on society is a big negative.

Imagine if instead of consuming resources to bring a community back to normal after a war or some other type of disaster, the community had never experienced a disaster in the first place. Imagine if instead, those resources had been invested in making the community that much more productive and wealthier? This is the opportunity cost that is typically not seen by the public. This is what the famous French economist Frederic Bastiat described as the "what is not seen" dimension typically ignored by government economists who rationalize the wars of their employer.

Incidentally, one of Bastiat's famous essays that dramatizes the opportunity costs is known as the "fallacy of the broken window," where he points out the absurdity behind the notion that a broken window is good for society overall, even though it might benefit a window repairman and a glass maker.

Two other important myths we need to deal with are
a) The idea that military research and development is a competitive substitute for civilian research and development oriented towards a free market
b) World War Two brought America out of the Great Depression

An outstanding source that addresses these two issues is the lecture (on MP3) "What Thrives and What Dies During War" by Dr. Mark Thornton of the Mises Institute.

According to Dr. Thornton, his research shows that military research and development is vastly more inefficient and wasteful than its counterpart in the private sector that is geared towards a free market. This is especially true in time of war when gifted people are getting shot and bombed, thereby depleting the base of human talent. The reality is that military development in time of war tends to cannibalize peacetime research and development infrastructure. Rather than being truly innovative, it tends to simply accelerate the assembly of ideas that were already developed and on the drawing boards in the private sector.

It is true that government research and development can come up with lots of cool and flashy things. Some good examples are the Mach 3.2 SR-71 Blackbird (despite being 1960's technology, still cool enough to be flown by X-women Jean Gray and Storm in X-man II ), DARPA's Internet, and the Saturn Five rocket. However, a major issue here is economic efficiency.

A good example that compares government research and development inefficiency with the private sector is the article "NASA: Exemplary of Government Waste," by Alexander Villacampa. He claims that it costs taxpayers about 100 to 1,000 times more to get payloads in in orbit compared to a private sector operation such as SpaceShipOne.

If I can add my own interpretation here, I think what is particularly insidious about government programs that try to replace private industry are the ways they can create the illusion of superior competence and performance on the "front end." The horrible surprise comes on the "back end" many years down the line when the mask finally comes off and we see the same old government boondoggles at play.

One of the most effective ways government can create major illusions on the front end is when it can lure very successful "captains of industry" and their management teams to head up new government programs. Two prime examples are the way Henry Ford did a terrific job of producing tractors and other motorized vehicles for the U.S. Government during World War I. Consider also how Henry Kaiser did an incredible job of mass producing a Liberty ship a day during World War II. In both cases these individuals developed their management skills and production savvy in the private sector, so that once the government endowed them with massive resources, they were very skillful, savvy, and disciplined about putting them to effective use.

Then comes the "back end" many years down the line. The Henry Ford and Henry Kaiser types and their management teams leave to go back into the private sector. The government program lingers on without being phased out completely. Then up through the ranks come individuals who have been bureaucrats most of their professional lives who are much more experienced in bureaucratic politics than the production of real and useful things. The lack innovativeness and analytical intelligence. However, they are excellent at keeping up appearances and trading favors. Before long, we see just one more big wasteful government deadwood bureaucracy that is mostly form and little substance.

In regard to the common belief that World War Two pulled America out of the Great Depression, Dr. Thornton offers the alternative libertarian viewpoint that FDR's economic policies were generally a continuing disaster, and the way America finally emerged from the Great Depression was largely an accident that occurred despite his policies, not because of them. In other words, when dealing with a country as large as the United States with such vast natural resources (which I might personally add also had one of the largest repositories of Nordic, Celtic, and other white genes in the world), it was pretty hard for FDR and his neo-Communist Jewish advisors to keep screwing everything up everywhere all the time without something finally spontaneously healing itself somewhere.

To understand Dr. Thornton's viewpoint, it is first helpful to understand the Austrian economic viewpoint on the causes of the Depression and its best possible cures. The following is a simplified overview from the anarcho-libertarian perspective:

The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve Banking system which was created in 1913. It doubled the money supply during WWI and again in the 1920's. It also sponsored an orgy of credit creation in the 1920's on the fractional banking reserve system. All of this created a heavily distorted economy filled with mal investment and bad debt.

Then following the initial stock market crash, the Federal Reserve took the punch bowl away from the party, and helped exacerbate a massive credit contraction that shocked the economy and put many banks out of business across the country. See Dr. Murray Rothbard's analysis in his work The Great Depression (PDF link).

See also my discussion of Vincent LoCascio's book Special Privilege: How the Monetary Elite Benefit at Your Expense in my centralized vs. decentralized article. For example I quote from page 95 how the Fed did the exact opposite of what it promised Congress it would do when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, namely it failed to provide liquidity to distressed banks caught up in a disaster beyond their control:

The first opportunity the Fed had to be a lender of last resort occurred during the 1920s. In 1920, there were 23,000 banks in America. In 1929, there were only 18,000. In the interim 5,700 banks failed and less than 1,000 new ones were formed. In other words, about one out of every four banks failed during the 20s — the first full decade after we instituted the lender of last resort! During the 50 years of the reputedly ineffective National Banking System, only in 1893, a panic year, did more than 300 banks fail in a single year. From 1921 through 1929, during supposedly good times, an average of over 600 banks per year failed. Even in the best of those years (1922) 367 banks failed. From 1930-33, over 9,100 more banks failed, producing a 50% reduction in the number of banks in a four-year period. As lender of last resort, the Fed was an even more miserable failure than as a source of monetary stability.

To all of this in better perspective, according to Dr. Murray Rothbard during the 19th century the American bank failure rate was rarely ever more than 1-2% a year. This was during the period of relatively decentralized banking and a hard money system. (Most banks maintained at least 40% of their deposits backed up by gold. The dollar was pegged to gold and silver, and gold and silver coins freely traded). In other words, the major claim for the Federal Reserve System's existence in 1913 that it would provide an important safety net and source of financial stability was a big fraud. Its reckless monetary and credit expansion policies created major instability, and then worse yet, once the inevitable serious economic adjustments eventually came along to correct for the economic distortions and malinvestments originally encouraged by the Fed, the central banking system then played political favorites regarding who it decided to help or not help. In other words, the Fed waged a silent banker's civil war against the American banking sector.

What the economy really needed in order to get through a sharp depression was to clear out the bad debt and mal investments while maintaining the stability of the banking system. It needed to encourage entrepreneurs and industrialists to revitalize capital formation and job creation. Clearing out the bad debt and mal investment implied allowing culpable banks to fail while supporting honest banks. It also meant maintaining a business-friendly environment with low taxes.

As an example of a President who got it right, libertarians like to cite the case of the Martin Van Buren administration that lasted from 1837-1841. His administration simply stood back and did nothing following a sharp stock market correction and business recession. The free market cleared out the bad debt and economic distortions and spontaneously restarted the economy on a firm economic recovery within two years. Listen to the MP3 lecture Martin Van Buren: What Greatness Really Means by Dr. Jeffrey Hummel, or read his online article "Martin Van Buren: The American Gladstone."

In contrast, many libertarians believe that FDR's policies prolonged and deepened the Depression for well over a decade. He protected the criminals who ran the Fed. He ran intellectual cover for their banking and corporate sector cronies. He unfairly blamed the Depression on greedy laissez faire businessmen in the heartland. He supported strong arm tactics of the Fed that favored the Fed's crony banks at the expense of prudent banks. He artificially elevated commodity prices, asset values, and wages so that the free market could not correct major economic distortions and mal investments. He raised taxes to high levels and surrounded his administration with leftists, all of which severely antagonized the entrepreneurial community and made it reluctant to create new businesses and jobs.

In the Austrian economic view, America began to come out of the Depression towards the end of World War II mainly because the continued inflationary spending of FDR administration, combined with wartime wage-price controls, finally dropped real wage and asset prices down to a level where a free market could finally effectively sort them out and businesses could finally find a profit incentive to redeploy undervalued assets and rebuild enterprises. This had the same effect as if FDR had originally followed President Martin Van Buren's approach and let the free market drop prices and clear out bad debt, except in the case of FDR's highly manipulated, retarded, and unnatural policies, everything wound up having to take more than six times as long.

The aforementioned Austrian viewpoint is a highly simplified one in many ways. However, I still believe it is vastly more accurate than the "environmental top down" viewpoint offered by most court historians today. According to the viewpoint of America's current political correctness Establishment, the Depression was caused by excessive greed and competition among American businesses. It says nothing about the culpability of the central bank. According to the Establishment historians, if anything the FDR administration did not engage in enough government intervention and the central bank did not keep pumping out enough credit and monetary stimulus.

America's current Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, earned his Phd by performing a Keynesian analysis of the causes of the Great Depression. Like his predecessor Alan Greenspan, he is also Jewish. He has earned the nickname "helicopter money Ben" because he is prepared to shower money on the economy as if it were being dropped out of helicopters. He intends to perpetually inflate credit bubbles and hyperinflate the dollar into oblivion while leaving the underlying central banking structure in tact. This, as opposed to the Austrian approach which would get rid of the central bank and all of its crony capitalists, go back to a hard currency and very limited fractional reserve deposit system, and focus upon correcting all of the major economic distortions created by excessive credit and monetary expansion as quickly and as painlessly as possible without continually reinflating market bubbles.

My biggest complaint with the Austrian or "anarcho-libertarian" explanation is not that it is "wrong," but rather that while it is "right" in certain areas, it fails to cover other important dimensions. The Austrians act as if FDR's mistakes were simply errors caused by a combination of ignorance and political expedience. In contrast, people further to the right detect a steady pattern of malevolent behavior which they believe was deliberately designed to tear down traditional America. They believe that there is strong evidence that the Federal Reserve Banking System is privately owned by a gang of highly psychopathic Jewish supremacists, the same species of vicious humanity who played a key role in financing the Bolshevik Revolution and supplying it with the majority Jewish leadership in the higher Bolshevik and secret police ranks that led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russians.

I believe that the Fed deliberately pulled the money and credit punchbowl in the early 1930's as part of a banker's civil war to put competing banks out of business. FDR's administration was filled with vicious, neo-communist Jews. This was well known by many American conservatives at the time who referred to the "New Deal" as "The Jew Deal." See, for example, Elizabeth Dillings' The Red Network first published in 1934. A later example included FDR's Jewish Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau. His infamous "Morganthau Plan" advocated the massive postwar elimination of German industry, even if it implied the starvation deaths of over ten million Germans. FDR and Churchill actually signed off on this evil plan during the 1944 Quebec conference. Fortunately a certain measure of sanity prevailed when its full implementation was undermined by Gen George S. Patton and other U.S. military leaders..

If was probably more than coincidence the Depression provided an incredible opportunity for Jewish supremacist plutocrats to buy out remaining major media in America such as the The Washington Post which was still had not yet fallen under their control. Nor was it coincidence that Jews provided massive funding and major leadership for the Communist party in that era. They comprised the same kinds of vicious and deceitful people we see today in The High Priests of War who have high jacked America into disastrous military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan . They are now pushing this country towards further disasters in other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran, Pakistan, and Syria.

FDR served as a "useful idiot" who helped disguise an unspeakably evil conspiracy. It's chief aim was to take over the United States and convert it into a brutal Communist dictatorship. Many conspiracy theorists also believe that this was only one stepping stone in preparation for an eventual "New World Order" one world government run by Jewish supremacists in Jerusalem.

If you are interested in seeing more hard core conspiracy theory, please try the article What Every Jew (and Non-Jew) Should Know" by Dr. Henry Makow at Dr. Makow, who is Jewish, reports the concerns of Christopher Jon Bjerknes, who is himself also part Jewish.

A Chicago-area scholar, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, 42, thinks he knows what plagues mankind and believes his knowledge is necessary to stop Armageddon.
He says a heretical cult, the "Shabataian Frankists," controls organized Jewry, including Zionism and Freemasonry. They began as followers of Shabatai Zvi (1626-1676) and later Jacob Frank (1726-1791.) They believe Shabatai was the Messiah (God) and his soul has transmigrated down to the Rothschild dynasty, who are now the "king of the Jews."
According to their messianic system, Redemption requires that the Rothschilds become God, i.e. king of the world. This will see the sacrifice of 2/3 of all Jews and the destruction and enslavement of the rest of mankind. Bjerknes believes this demented creed actually is the motive force behind history, including all wars, and "world government."
Bjerknes (B-YERK-NES) is proud of his Norwegian Jewish heritage, (maternal grandfather, a famous musician, was Jewish.) He has written two massive books-- one about Albert Einstein as a plagiarist, and another about the Shabataian inspired Armenian Genocide -- that include hundreds of pages of suppressed Jewish history. They can be found as PDFs at his web site
I think he exaggerates the importance of Jewish messianism but I may be wrong. His message is compelling and consistent with the Protocols of Zion where the author (whom I believe is Lionel Rothschild) talks about coming into his "kingdom."
The Shabataians believe their king is duty bound to restore the Jews to Israel and exterminate the Gentiles. They believe the Messiah won’t appear until the world succumbs to evil and are determined to make this prophecy self-fulfilling. Thus evil is good. In Bjerknes' view, this constitutes a "Jewish war against humanity." When Bjerknes refers to Jewish, he means "Shabataian"...

Perhaps former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was not kidding when he said, "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."

Most of the leaders of what was still left of the Old Right in America during the 1930's could smell the deceptions of FDR from a far distance. Henry Ford once voiced words to the effect that if most Americans could understood the financial system at once, there would be a revolution in the streets the following morning. Watch America From Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo or please read consider works such as Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper or Viper's Venom by Col Donn de Grand Pre to get an introduction to the real nature of America's criminal elitists.

Some commentary regarding the strong centralization viewpoint:

There is a certain measure of truth in each of the statements listed on the right. However, I think my preceding discussion makes clear how we run into the potential for escalating problems as we become more dependent upon a centralized government or large standing military to help us define our basic values as opposed to remaining rooted in a healthy civilian community that retains a high capacity for self-determination.

I have strong dislike for certain anarcho-libertarians who scoff at the idea patriotism or the idea that military service is an appropriate avenue for expressing patriotic sentiment. As I have pointed out in my short discussion of the history of the Watauga militia, even in a highly decentralized society with a high degree of localized self determination, there is still a strong need for its citizens to shoulder military functions. This is true even if they go about it without the spit and polish and martial flair of a highly professionalized standing army.

Even in a normal, workaday, civilian environment, there is always a need for individuals to have within them what one might call a "fighting spirit." I do not mean swaggering around or bullying people or wearing paramilitary attire. Rather, I mean maintaining within a strong will to live and to support the vital interests of your own family, your own people, and your most critical values against all of their enemies. It means having the courage to stand up for yourself when that is the right thing to do. Often the best way to go about this is in a calm, low key, polite, yet firm and determined manner.

Furthermore, I think that sociobiologists would argue that there are certain instinctive tribalistic, altruistic, and aggressive tendencies that give rise to grass roots military behavior. These traits have evolved in certain gene pools because they confer a survival advantage over more pacifistic human groups. Therefore, in certain Darwinian selective environments, many human groups have evolved to have a high capacity for conducting military operations.

Imperialists typically try to play a massive psychological hat trick game on their subjects by trying to persuade them to transfer their instinctive tribal and patriotic tendencies away from a tangible community that reflects their ethnic genetic interests and instead focus these tendencies upon ideological abstractions. They also try to transfer loyalty towards an impersonal super state dominated behind the scenes by alien plutocrats. An example of an ultimate consequence of this imperial game that I mentioned previously on this web page involved the janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, who were brainwashed into acting as warriors against their own racial stock. In a somewhat similar vein, white people were duped by imperial regimes of the 20th century into engaging in mass slaughter of their own kind in two fratricidal world wars.

From a traditional American conservative perspective, a certain measure of openly stated militarism and patriotism is both desirable and healthy so long as its use is kept politically decentralized and focused upon serving the ethnic genetic interests of ones own white ancestors. These things are necessary to help maintain a vital level of cohesion, sense of purpose, and honorable behavior within society.

From this perspective, national media attacks on traditional American patriotism, military service, and masculinity icons are hitting way below the belt. One good example of such an attack was the movie Brokeback Mountain produced by the usual suspects (Jewish supremacists). It portrayed a group of American cowboys as a bunch of queers. (Cowboys serve as an American masculinity icon, of course). Many right wingers viewed this piece of "cultural Marxism" as part of a continuing stream of subversion designed to further undermine the psychological fabric of what little is left of traditional American white society.

Return to question 15

Proceed to commentary for question 16


Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.