…the FBI has become very concerned that “conspiracy theorists” might be influencing people not to accept the “authorized version” of national and historic events. One has to wonder what their plans are for those folks who refuse to accept the official government version of unfolding events… After all, a government always puts its “official” version of any event out there in the hopes that a gullible public will embrace it and look no further. To say that governments are corrupt and lie to their subjects would only be to state the very obvious…I wonder if the new purview of the FBI will be to make sure everyone believes those fabrications the government releases to us as “truth.”
“We” are not the government. The government is not “us.” The government is nothing but a relatively small number of elite men (and a few mentally retarded women like Nancy Pelosi) that hold a regional monopoly on the use of force and violence (force is the threat of violence). It is a mafia-like organization whose sole purpose is to take wealth from the productive class and give it to their cronies in the military-industrial-congressional-and law enforcement cartels. They commit crimes on a massive scale and a daily basis that they would lock the rest of us in a steel cage for doing. — jtl, 419
by Al Benson Jr. at revisedhistory.com
Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America
I have just recently read that now the FBI has become very concerned that “conspiracy theorists” might be influencing people not to accept the “authorized version” of national and historic events. One has to wonder what their plans are for those folks who refuse to accept the official government version of unfolding events.
Will it soon be verboten to believe anything other than the Warren Commission Report of the Kennedy assassination or that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King Jr.? After all, a government always puts its “official” version of any event out there in the hopes that a gullible public will embrace it and look no further. To say that governments are corrupt and lie to their subjects would only be to state the very obvious.
AndI wonder if this will include all those that refuse to believe the “authorized version” of events surrounding the Lincoln assassination. Though I hope I am wrong, I’d be willing, at this point, to believe it will because there are still lots of people today who have done serious homework and have found notable holes in the government’s official version of Lincoln’s demise. If their questions arise strongly and convincingly enough, then history books might have to be rewritten and the Establishment wants to avoid that, or anything that would lend credence to the idea that they lied to us about what really happened.
Years ago I saw a quote that said “Fear the government that fears your guns.” That is an accurate assessment, which I agree with. I also think we need to fear the government that fears our questions about national events–to the point where they appoint a government agency to check out people who won’t believe their version of what has happened.
In that vein, I have, of late, been reading a series of articles by Steven Hager on https://stevenhager.net about the Lincoln assassination and the results of it. Hager doesn’t totally agree with all the researchers I have quoted on this subject recently, but he doesn’t totally disagree either. For instance, he feels that it was Booth that was killed in Garrett’s tobacco barn, but he also believes that Mary Surratt was innocent of complicity in the Lincoln assassination. Like me, he believes she was aware of the plot to kidnap Lincoln, but not aware of the plot to assassinate him. And others believe the same. Establishment historians do not.
On October 7, 2014, Mr. Hager noted on his website the following: “You won’t find mention of Senator Benjamin Franklin Wade of Ohio in many Lincoln assassination books, an obvious oversight since he’s implicated in that plot through a letter discovered in Sanford Conover’s hotel room. (Sanford’s real name was Charles Dunham and he was a double agent super spook working for Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.) Conover ran the scandalous school for scoundrels that groomed the paid perjurers helping convict the designated patsies, a list that included Jefferson Davis and Mary Surratt.” In previous article I have noted Mr. Conover and his school for liars.
Mr. Hager continued: “Wade and Thaddeus Stevens were the real power in Washington, and Lincoln was just a useful tool. Wade engineered his buddy from Ohio (Edwin Stanton) as head of the War Department. Stanton became the key person in the assassination plot and cover-up. Lincoln was killed because he was vetoing Wade’s harsh plans for Reconstruction and wanted to go soft and easy on the South after the conflict was over. After becoming President, Andrew Johnson decided Lincoln had the right approach, so Stevens and Wade made moves to get rid of him, while slamming their reconstruction plans through Congress.” Part of their plan to get rid of Andrew Johnson was his impeachment, which failed by one single vote.
And Hager noted that: “It wasn’t so much Congress thought Johnson innocent, but may have feared a reign-of-terror if Wade ascended to the throne, as he was President Pro Tempore and since there was no Vice President, that meant Wade would have become the 18th President if the impeachment had been successful. Never has a man plotted so deviously to take ultimate power in Washington, and he got close enough to taste it. The actual impeachment was sparked by an attempt by Johnson to fire Stanton. To keep the Lincoln assassination conspiracy under wraps, it was essential to maintain control of the War Department’s secret files on the subject.” And he stated: “Wade and Thaddeus Stevens were united on their great contempt for Lincoln, feelings not-so-secretly shared by Stanton, Salmon Chase and Charles Sumner. This is the cabal that ran Washington during the war.”
One place I disagree with most of these writers is their position that Lincoln wanted to “go soft” on the South. Admittedly, his reconstruction plan might not have been as radical as that of Wade, Sumner and Stevens, but what Lincoln was really interested in was the political patronage that would accrue to him if he got to choose all the officers to administer a reconstruction plan for the South. You can bet the farm that the Radical Republicans had that in mind also and if Lincoln got to do his reconstruction plan then they and their plan would fade into the woodwork. And they did what they did to make sure that didn’t happen. So let’s don’t kid ourselves, the poor South would have gotten stiffed either way, only with Lincoln’s plan it wouldn’t have been quite so apparent.
So, with Johnson’s impeachment falling short, Ben Wade was kept out of the White House, which was probably a blessing. And the War Department’s files on the Lincoln assassination remained away from prying eyes until 1938! Can you believe that? That’s the year I was born, and until that year, no prying eyes got to see the records and files of Lincoln’s assassination. And even though others got to see those files that year, you can bet that they had been purged to take lots of incriminating stuff out. Even so, what was left was more than enough to start serious researchers asking questions–that remain unanswered even to this day.
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.