Podcast Show #34

The Boiling Frogs Presents Tony Hall

BFP Podcast Logo

Tony Hall provides us with an overview of his recently released book Earth into Property, and discusses the relationship between the dispossession of Indigenous peoples and the making of global capitalism, beginning with Christopher Columbus's inception of a New World Order in 1492. He tells us how the US corporate state moved to fill the vacuum of power after the dismantling of the formal empires of Europe after the Second World War, and how the US government is seeking to replicate its Cold War era role by mounting the Global War on Terror. Professor Hall talks about Obama the brand, the National Security Act, the anti-imperial current, and more.

thall2Anthony J. Hall is a professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The American Empire and the Fourth World, which introduces the series, The Bowl with One Spoon. "Earth Into Property: Colonization, Decolonization and Capitalism" is the second volume of the Bowl Project.

Here is our guest Tony Hall unplugged!

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Wow, this is big picture stuff. Thanks for the show guys. Thanks to Canadians like Prof. Hall and Naomi Klein for this kind of historical analysis.
    That was one of the faster hours in this series. I still can’t get over how the US absorbed Nazi fascist elements in the post war period. Seeing it as part of the big continuum though, it makes sense. It brings to mind Russ Baker’s work regarding the Bush clan and of course Peter Dale Scott’s Deep State.
    As the time line drew close to 2001 in the discussion, even if you were from Mars, you could most easily predict a state sponsored provacation to recharge the system. Seems our famous Military Industrial Complex has a powerful inertia.
    911 won’t go away.

  2. @JED: ” It brings to mind Russ Baker’s work regarding” Great minds think alike:-)

  3. This is again a very good podcast. Unfortunately we had to wait a bit for it. But you made up with this guest! I did not knew before. Thanks for introducing him. Hall has a very clear, broad, and levelheaded vision. I bought his books directly. More importantly, he talks at the level of abstraction that is necessary to grasp how power really works on a global level.


  4. hctroubador says:

    Great podcast Sibel! I’m sorry to say that I was unaware of Prof. Hall’s work, doubly embarrassing because I’m a fellow Albertan! That is something I intend to rectify. Many thanks!

  5. walkwithliberty says:

    I don’t really agree with Anthony J. Hall.

    My biggest problem with research is that he concluded that instead of using our money to bail out the banks that we should somehow use it for the “public good”. He kept emphasizing the “collective good” too.

    He quoted JFK that “it’s not what our country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. I am not a fan of nationalism where we make sacrifices to the state.

    This collectivist mentality is all wrong, and is exactly opposite to the US Constitution.

    Clearly this guy has no idea understanding of what property rights are, and I am actually amazed that it never even occurred to Anthony J Hall that the government should just give back the money to the taxpayer.

    There was a general impression that he thought capitalism was the same as imperialism or fascism too, which is also incorrect. He needs to read up on his philosophy.

    Someone needs to educate this guy.

    Thanks for listening.

  6. ZicaTanka says:

    Sorry, can’t listen now, busy clearing the snow on my street. Whew, sure glad I can do this by myself. One of these days I’ll buy a plow, when they give all my tax money back. But they should keep the portion for the military cause that’s not socialism, ya know.

  7. ZicaTanka says:

    will liberty bend
    to protect and defend
    the natural gas
    and the oel in da san

    can’t liberty bend
    to protect and defend
    our sweat shop sody pop
    our sweet tooth for workin youth

    to protect and defend and protect and defend
    yee haw rootin tootin
    ridem hard and keep a shootin

    and down the road ahead

    we’ll be free to pretend
    this defective blend
    of money, guns, and god
    ain’t the end of us all

  8. walkwithliberty says:

    All taxes collected in the United States are not moral nor are they constitutional. If you decided to not pay your taxes, the government would use FORCE to collect them. This means you are not consenting to pay your taxes, but you are forced to do so. Do you not see that this is a violation of property rights? It is, regardless of where those taxes are going towards.

    Even if you really want to support the military, do you really think each American should have to pay an average of $2,300/year to support all the bases, wars based on lies, and everything else? This is absurd, yet this is a fact. Take the currently yearly defense budget and divide it by the number of US citizens and you will get a number greater than $2,300.

    Frankly, I don’t support the wars, but I am still livid that I am FORCED to pay $2,300 out of my earnings anyway. That’s nearly 77 ounces of fine silver that I could have purchased for myself and my family!

    The truth is, income tax was never a power granted by the constitution, and it is still isn’t. America is a Republic, and we were NEVER supposed to have standing armies. This whole military mess was invented way after the creation of our country. I don’t the US troops to die because of under funding, but I’d rather just send them all home so we can reduce our spending, save lives and get rid of the IRS! That’s the real answer.

  9. ZicaTanka says:

    I’ve met a few people who talk down collectivism, EXCEPT for the military and guessed wrong that you were one of them. My apologies.

    It does suck that we are forced to pay for these wars.

    But, I’m thankful that I can pay for and use many government services. I think a public works program is exactly what this country needs right now. Give all the unemployed jobs building our infrastructure. I went over the 35W bridge the night before it collapsed and believe that we need to put our collective resources into things that we all use and want to remain safe.

    Also, I find it immoral to have things such as the prison system and military in for-profit control. Conflict of interest.

  10. walkwithliberty says:

    ZicaTanka, here are some things to think about:

    1. The problem with a public works project is that it doesn’t really produce wealth. Jobs and wealth creation are not at all the same thing. Once the infrastructure is done, what next? Everyone is unemployed again.

    Also, it begs the question: how do you *pay* these people to build the infrastructure in the first place? With what money, and who’s money?

    You see, it sounds nice, but it’s fundamentally flawed on many levels. In order for this to work, you have to take (i.e. steal) money from people who have money in order to pay the workers. If you don’t take it from the wealthier people, then you must print the money instead… but this still taxes the people, and is more deceptive as it debases everyone’s savings.

    Basically, you can’t have a public works program without violating individual rights, which is NOT constitutional and would thus be illegal. This hasn’t stopped politicians and bureaucrats in the past… but that just tells you they are all criminals.

    2. You are making an assumption that *my* money is part of our “collective resources”. There is no collective. We are not Borg – we are individuals. If I earn money, it should be mine as it was my choices, productive effort and thought that earned that money. Why do I earn money? Because money allows me to self-sustain and self-actuate my life, and it allows me to pursue happiness – rights granted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Essentially, I don’t earn money for everyone else’s sake, and I honestly don’t expect anyone to give me their money for my sake either. Taking money from individuals and putting it into some “collective pool” is just a euphemism for violating individual property rights. Again, this is unconstitutional.

    3. Imagine we got rid of all the taxes and invented a voluntary, just and moral to replace it. What would this system look like? I’ll tell you.

    Businesses often deal with other businesses. It happens all the time. It is in the businesses rational self-interest to protect itself and it needs government services (i.e. the courts) to do this. Why not have a voluntary service charge where both parties can pay a very small % of the contract to the government. In exchange, the government will certify and protect both parties for that contract.

    Because it’s voluntary, the parties do not have to participate and no money is given to the government. But here’s the catch – that contract will not stand up on a court of law, nor will the government arbitrate it – thus they cannot use government services! Both parties would then be forced to deal with a private arbitration firm, but it would never be as good as the official court system.

    This small % would pay police, courts, and several misc. things the federal government should be involved in. Of course it won’t pay for social security, BS wars, and a whole slew of other non-sense… but it would easily be enough to run the government. You probably wouldn’t need to charge very much at all… maybe .25% to 1%.

    And of course, such services would be free to use for individuals in criminal cases. This really doesn’t cost this much.

    This is the way to move forward if we want to live in a free, moral and just society.

    I have you found this educational and helpful. If we want our freedom back, we need to learn the philosophy and what it really means to be a free people.

  11. ZicaTanka says:

    Thanks, WWL, I’ll sure think about that scenario. One point you mentioned about not having wealth or jobs after we build our infrastructure. Well, we would have an infrastructure, which is wealth, and it would need to be maintained, which is jobs.

    As for who’d pay, I’d definitely say the super wealthy, who are way past the realm of morality. One idea Nader had was for a Securities Speculation Tax (http://votenader.org/issues/speculation-tax/). That’s something that is also voluntary, done mostly by rich people, and harmful to the rest of us.

  12. walkwithliberty says:

    Real wealth is building new products and services. As these companies build things that people value, they grow and make profit, they can hire new people and a whole ton of people get wealthier. These businesses actually last. Sure every business dies, but in a truly free society, you have everyone trying to out-compete everyone else.

    I’ve never read about the securities speculation tax, but I am not in favour of something that only taxes the super rich. What is super rich? $250,000/year? $1 million/year? $50 million/year?

    The truth is, the wealthier someone is in a free-market, the more likely it is a result of making a business or investing in something that employs people.

    Of course, the idea of super-wealthy people is skewed because in today’s mixed economy, the super-wealthy are totally corrupt, violate individuals’ rights all the time, and have monopolies enforced by government – all of this is totally immoral and isn’t real capitalism at all. It’s basically fascism. They’ve just done a good job giving us duopolies rather than monopolies to hide this fact.

  13. walkwithliberty says:

    I also want to point out that even if you think building infrastructure actually does build wealth, it’s still against the Constitution anyway, so the point is moot anyhow.

  14. ZicaTanka says:

    Here’s something I think you’ll like.

    The American Dream


    I agree with your statements about the money, IRS, Fed. I only say we are a little bit borg by natural providence or at least our commonly used space. If you have time check out the Nader link. There may be some stuff there you agree with. Thanks.

  15. ZicaTanka says:

    And your reminded me of some humor. Remember Jesse Jackson’s SNL game show after his dem nomination run in 84?

    “The question is moot!” 🙂

    I think he had said that in one of the debates, but can’t remember.

Speak Your Mind