Hunter two runs as communications director at bring
our troops home. He's the editor at the
libertarian Institute and a regular contributor, to the
American, conservative Hunter, thank you for your time, happy
to be here. Keith, thanks so much for
inviting me, of course ma'am. What was the nie committee?
So the nie committee was named after Central, Gary Oldman, I
who was a republican from North Dakota, he was a very
Progressive Republican and the Robert La Follette.
Action think populist Pro farmer anti big Corporation somewhat
anti-big government anti-corruption very much
populist style in the interwar period.
And the nine committee was the Congressional investigation that
he chaired from 1934 to 1936 investigating War profiteering
and the actions of large weapons manufacturers during World War
One. One.
He and the committee where he was joined by five other
Senators including champ, Clark of Missouri, a Democrat and
Homer T-Bone of Washington state and other Democrat.
They investigated places like JPMorgan to DuPont Brothers
investigating, their profit margins during the war.
And if as was widely believed at the time, their pernicious
influence in DC and among the government was participatory
cause for us entry into World War One.
What were some of the conclusions that they find that
there was an actual sway in pulling the Americans into
changing public opinion and to supporting the war?
Or was it just that the interest happened to a line?
The committee uncovered a lot of skullduggery and a lot of
malfeasance on the part of these companies including things like
undercutting International Peace conferences.
Bribing foreign officials particularly in South America
funding, both sides of Border disputes and other minor
military conflicts throughout the world.
So they uncovered a lot of things when they were
investigating the records and histories of these companies
using the Congressional subpoena power.
But they weren't On. They were unable to definitively
prove the primary thesis that the weapons companies got us
into the war and even nine himself as much as inflammatory
as he was, as a speaker, and as a thinker, even he admitted that
the thesis probably bit off a little more than it could chew,
they found that the military contractors, at least.
And this is speaking purely about turn of the century.
America and up to 1914, did not have significant lobbying firms.
In d.c. see any larger than say any other lobbying groups such
as Farmers or any other special interest but that it is was a
contributing factor and that the participation of JPMorgan other
leading Bankers being guarantee years of financial loans, to
Great Britain and France and their encouragement of the
Wilson Administration to allow them to do this and sort of
introducing the route by which the United States, became a
co-belligerent in World War 1 prior to Only entering the war
that this all sort of Grease, the skids and contributed to it.
Although obviously world will want a very complex situation
with multiple reasons for us entry and this was one of
several, but I think it does speak to the fact that there was
such that there was such public interest in this issue and such
a widespread public willingness to investigate arms
manufacturers and ask the questions of, oh, are the people
making enormous profits off of the war making enormous profits
off the killing and death of US soldiers participating in these
conflicts, is there something pernicious going on here?
Is there something, the public should be involved in the
public, should be aware of. So I think it's just the fact
that they were asking those questions.
Students and that gay road, I was able to have the leeway to
hold these investigations host, dozens of committees.
Call people to testify issue and use the subpoena power and get
what is to this day. The best most transparent.
Look at the internal functioning of weapons.
Manufacturers, in all of history, I think it's very
important as an investigation, and as a landmark in American
history and in the congressional power. even if it wasn't fully
able to prove its thesis at Circa 1936 at least, What can
people learn from People Like Us.
Smedley Butler and Dwight D, Eisenhower's military-industrial
complex references. I think that they can learn that
there is at least among some may be all for all we know
self-awareness at the top of the military, brass the generals we
see on TV who become CNN commentators who testified
before Congress asking for these increased budgets.
We can guess that they know what they're doing.
They know and witness that the u.s. government is spending
currently tens of billions reaching into the hundreds of
billions of dollars on these weapons programs to receive
weapons and other technological material.
That is not up to par that regularly fails its testing, but
earns a profit for these private contractors and guarantees and
eventual job. And nice pension plan for these
retired officers. So I think when you have people
like Smedley Butler Major General of the US Marine Corps,
and of course, Dwight the Eisenhower not only
commander-in-chief, but former commander of the entirety of
u.s. military forces in Europe, during World War Two five-star.
The fact that they are able to see these connotations and
really see the system, I think the only thing that makes them
stand out from the other General is that they're willing to be
public about it, that they're willing to speak out and sort of
reveal and I'll pull the curtain behind and let us see inside of,
hey, this is how things actually work.
I'm telling you about it, I'm warning you about it, but I
think it's representative of the fact that all of these people on
top know what's going on. And it's, it's actually a
personal pet peeve of mine when people who Pose are enormous
military budget to fund the Empire people who describe
themselves as non interventionists, people who say
they oppose the war machine located, in the Imperial City of
Washington, d.c. that. It's just a matter of these guys
don't know what they're doing. If only we can educate them or
why does it seem Keith that all of these people when they talk
to us really seem that they're arguing in bad faith, they're
calling us names or not really taking a seriously you and I are
making such codes And points. Why aren't they listening?
It's for the fact that their entire financial livelihoods and
all of the respect, they are given by the public rests on
this current system. And anyone who dares threatened
that system who wants to tip over the apple cart, where five
giant International corporations like Northrop, Grumman like
Lockheed Martin or raking in billions and billions of dollars
off the taxpayer and off the sacrifices of America.
Soldiers, any possible threat to that, they're going to come down
on like a ton of bricks, they will slander, they will
discredit, they will lie about, they will come after you, and
I'm sure we'll get that into more details of that later in
the conversation because they are, well, aware of how the
system profits them. They're well aware of how good
they have it and they recognize people like you and I as a
threat and I think it's a very important conception for people
who agree with you and I Hi and agree that we need a dramatic
reassessment of u.s. foreign policy priorities to understand.
The article that I am referencing here is titled
merchants of death from the night committee to Joe Kent.
The fight against war. Profiteering is a constant
struggle. Anything people should know
about Joe Kent. Joe Kent is a former Green Beret
who served many, many years in the US military, including
deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I believe he is currently a Congressional candidate endorsed
by Donald Trump. Running in Washington state.
The other month, you won his primary against an incumbent
Republican, and he is likely to be the next congressman from
that District. I spoke with him about this
interview because he is one of the few candidates currently
who's actually making it a point to use the term military
industrial complex is one of the few people we currently see on
the ballot in the 2022 elections who's actively decrying the
prophets and the Moline mode Asians that comes from these
weapons companies and I asked him flat out if given the
possibility or given the opportunity, would you be
interested and are willing to host a 21st century version of
the nigh committee to investigate these companies and
try to hold them to account from his new standpoint in Congress
and his response was yes absolutely with no hesitation
and I feel very encouraged by that personally.
There was a book titled room, 40 British Naval intelligence, 1914
to 1918 by Patrick Beasley. He says, I am reluctantly driven
to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy to put the
Lusitania at risk in the hopes that even an abortive attack on
her would bring the United States into war.
Are you familiar with, with this thesis?
I am Do you want to believe there is any credibility to it?
I do. I think it's readily believed by
most historians at this point, or, at least has to be
recognized that the situation of the Lusitania, which was a
British ship carrying many civilians, including hundreds of
American civilians in 1915. That it was also carrying
weapons of war to be used in the British.
War effort and that there were numerous public warnings from
the German the German government to that warning Americans, not
to get on these sort of British ships because they would be
treated by the German military as part of the war effort and
within the laws of war, legally able to sync and that's what
happened. When excuse me, a German
submarine sank the Lusitania, there was an enormous explosion
not just from the torpedo but because As they ignited, all of
the weapons on board the ship. And that was one of the main
discussions about American entry into World War 1, where you have
very, very slim minority led by Secretary of State, William
Jennings Bryan. Saying, if United States is
going to keep out of this war, we have to practice true
neutrality and that means recognizing that during or in
areas where there is active Naval conflict between Great
Britain and Germany that Americans have to tread lightly.
Lee, when they go past the territorial Waters of the United
States and in many cases, take their lives into their own
hands, because that is merely the risk of going into a war
zone where as it became the position of Woodrow, Wilson and
many other Americans, that the America that the United States
and her citizens, as allegedly neutral power had the right to
go anywhere and seemingly do anything at whatever amount of
risk because that's was incumbent.
Adonis. And it was believed to be, all
right? And then you have either firmer
extremists, Theodore Roosevelt like Theodore Roosevelt, former
president, who just wanted to get into the war immediately for
any reason but now I think it's a yes I think it's very well
acknowledged by modern historians that the Lusitania.
Wow, there might be disagreements on whether or not
American neutral rights. Whether that was a Justified
reason for entering the war or whether it was reasonable
position to take That the British government and Winston
Churchill in particular, is I believe at the time, first Lord
of the admiralty was very much in favor of using incidents,
like the Lusitania to drift the United States in the war because
that was in the interests of Great Britain.
They wanted the Americans to come in, not just with their
troops. But particularly with increased
loans and better finances to fund the British war effort, and
the Lusitania was a way to make that happen and it's a
situation. We've witnessed all throughout
American history. We from the Mexican American War
to World War 1 and World War 2 and Beyond where American
presidents and foreign governments, either collaborate
explicitly or just see an inherent alignment of interests
to create incidents and other scenarios that are more likely
to draw the United States government and convince the
American people to participate in a foreign war.
Yeah, I want to say it was in late 1914.
When Churchill was Lord of the admiralty and he initiated the
blockade around Germany, which a very favorable historian, Martin
Gilbert, a favorable towards Churchill estimates.
That something in the hundreds of thousands of women and
children died as a cause of result of not being able to
trade or get access to food and other medicines.
At the time I want to put and that was one of the arguments
that was put forward by Brian and the others who Leave that
United States should remain neutral and hold both sides to
account. The fact that we are demanding
of the German government, that Americans ought to be free to
travel safely and international waters.
Aboard British ships travel to Great, Britain and participate
in trade, but there was no demands by the American
government or by the White House.
Being made upon the British government to allow Americans to
bypass the British blockade travel to Germany trade with
Germany. It was a completely one-sided
demand because at this point already, the Nation.
And to be fair, in very large, part of the American population.
Started, World War One in full. Sympathy with the and taunt with
the British and French. The notice by the Imperial
German Embassy was actually published.
In American newspapers saying, Travelers intending to embark on
the Atlantic Voyage are reminded that a state of War exists
between Germany and her allies. Great Britain it goes on, but
these documents can be found one citation that I use is Page 432
of the intimate papers of Colonel house.
This was actually published by Yale University.
I believe the year is 1928. It says on the morning of May
7th house, Colonel Edward house Wilson's right-hand man and
Edward grey drove out to Q. We spoke of the possibility of
an ocean liner, being sunk recorded house.
And I told him if this were done a flame of indignation would
sweep Across America, which would in itself, probably carry
us into the war an hour later house was with King George and
Buckingham Alice, we fell to talking strangely enough, the
colonel wrote that night of the probability of Germany sinking,
a transatlantic liner he said suppose they should sink the
Lusitania with American passengers on board.
So the reason that I use this as because Yale published this in
the late 1920s, in reference to Colonel house.
I looked for retractions, I look for clarifications, there's a
very high likelihood that there was a general understanding that
we Do a b and c and provoke, a war and change public opinion in
such a way. Finally lesson, what are some
lessons from World War one that we can extract?
I mean, we had military conscription one of the worst
forms of forced labor. America alone had 117 thousand
deaths. Not to mention something like 10
million deaths across Europe. What are some lessons we can
take from World War one? Before I describe the lessons, I
wanted to include And this other quote, which I find very
Illuminating about the situation when it comes to American
neutrality and the ability of American citizens to travel
overseas because it's a very I think popular opinion even
currently that the United States and Americans really have the
right to do anything in the world and that all other
countries, all other governments must tread very softly when it
comes to dealing with American citizens and I believe the
United States government, it's their responsibility to do,
whatever it can to keep. Her citizens, if they go
overseas, if they're gone to the trouble with foreign
governments, to keep them safe and find an amicable solution to
that. But I'd like to quote Senator,
John J, Blaine of Wisconsin, who is a very truculent and
Progressive? Republican in the 1920s.
He said, that no American citizen has a right to
jeopardize the peace and honor of his country for gain for
pleasure for adventure. And I think that's an important
way to look at it and that even though the government has a
responsibility to look after her citizens and find Solutions,
it's also the duty of citizens. When we go overseas, to not
imperil, our neighbors, our countrymen, our nation, into
these wars, on our behalf. And when we do that, we really
are taking our lives into our own hand in those situations.
But to answer your question about lessons from World War 1.
I think the biggest and probably the one most applicable right
now is that As Americans, we are born with extreme privilege, in
the sense of we are so geographically and politically
separated from the rest of the world.
It is not our problem to have to find out solutions to the rest
of the world's problems as an American you and I can sit here
and say, oh, there's a border dispute in Africa, a, which side
am I on? I don't have to care.
It doesn't involve me. We're Very lucky in that fact to
be separated by the rest of the World by two enormous oceans and
being able to decide our own fate and yet and this was
something, you know, easily recognized by George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson. And the other founding fathers
as a blessing to being born an American, and yet we have people
right now, people who on paper or as American as you, and I who
are saying, oh this border dispute between Ukraine and
Russia, these problems in Eastern Europe or this problem
in the Middle East. Do this reform, Movement and
protest and Iran. Whose side are we on?
What should we do as Americans? We should be able to say.
It's not my fight, it's not my problem, it's not my issue.
It's not my land, it's not my people, it's not anything to do
with me. I don't have to have an opinion.
I don't have to have an answer, I don't have to choose a side,
that's my right as an American and I think that's something
that the country really tried to learn after World War 1, where
we, as I mentioned earlier, in 1914, the war Up with most of
the American public being more sympathetic to the young talent
and favoring. Even if they didn't want to get
involved, specifically favoring a victory of Britain and France
over Germany. Mostly through cultural and
other such informal ties. But then after World War 1 and
witnessing, the death destruction and the costs, which
you named the American population during the interwar
period realized that blessing that I described that we the
problems of Europe, don't have to concern us.
If we don't choose to when we get involved, it's not an
inevitability. It's not because it's our
destiny. It's not because it's our job.
It's a policy decision made by people in Washington.
D.c. who I believe, don't have the best interests of the nation
at heart. And so that I think that's the
primary lesson of world war one. That just because we see a
problem elsewhere, doesn't mean we have to make it our business.
And when we do, it's not in That ability.
It's a choice. That I think is so vitally
important. It's like there's almost no
basic humility when it comes to the issues of overseas, it's
like, okay, do we have the proper amount of knowledge about
the situation, do the people who are going to be delegated to
having the responsibility to solving it.
Have an incentive to make the problem Better, or Worse?
What is the reputation of the people who will be given the
power to quote, solve this situation?
And do they have the ability to I mean, if murder rates are
increasing in places like California, Illinois and New
York. I don't see how we can keep
Taiwan safe. As the old quote says, he who
tries to be a friend to all is in the end, a friend to none.
And he who tries to defend everyone defends, no one in the
end. It's it's just too much but I
still think we can always have this principle of objective
truth and say You know what, I would have to look into the
situation a little more. I don't know the specifics, but
we, we oppose people, who anyone who initiates, violence against
peaceful people? Is it happening in Israel or
Ukraine or Nigeria? I might have to look into those
details but that is the principle with which I stand
firm on. And that's why I love the work
at the libertarian Institute that that we do.
The article merchants of death is actually going The part of a
larger compilation from what I hear tell us about that.
Yes the American conservative magazine is coming forth with a
new Anthology Book. It's out in November 15th, it's
called Main Street, conservatism the future of the right.
And so compendium of the best of Articles from the magazine of
the past 20 years, the American get served is coming up on its
20-year anniversary ever since it was founded in 2002 by Pat
Buchanan, others to opposed the Iraq War.
Or, and this new Anthology will include best of articles on
foreign policy on culture on their economic views, Etc.
And I'm happy to say that. My article merchants of death
will be included in the Anthology and I encourage
everyone to pre-order the book on Amazon.
Again, that's out November 15th, look up Main Street,
conservatism order yourself a copy.
I'm sure you'll make a great Christmas gift and, you know,
just dog-ear the page where my article starts.
So, you know, that people read that first.
You wrote another article, The Campaign to lie, America into
World War Two before Pearl Harbor.
There was an elaborate British influence operation of forged
documents fake news and manipulation.
What is your thesis and justification for such an
article? My thesis is actually a
tried-and-true one. This one has been around for
several decades base. He just pointing out, not even
alleging just laying forth, the facts that the British
government involved itself in extremely large, influential and
successful propaganda operation in 1941 in the lead-up to us
entry into World War Two, prior to the backdoor, to War through
Pearl Harbor, and through the Pacific that the British
government wanted to increase American Sympathy for the Allied
powers in. Increase American interest in
participating in the war and sort of turn the tables because
start going into 1941 huge majority of American population.
Had learned the lessons of world war one, which I just mentioned
that we did not want to get involved in a second world war.
We did not want to come save, John bowls bacon once again, we
just wanted to keep to ourselves and not suffer the enormous
financial and costs in blood. That we did during World War 1,
the British government recognized this recognize that
once again, it was in their interest to get the United
States involved and you spent an enormous amount of money and
diplomatic cover to create an operation located right here in
the United States in Rockefeller Center to propagandas, the
American people and do several things that included creating
fake news stories in overseas. Russians and sending them to
domestic American Publications and newspapers where they were
reprinted. These are stories favorable to
the British war effort to make it look like, they were winning
the war at the time. It is also involved in large,
part defaming decrying lying about smearing America First
leaders, including Gerald, my as isolationists, you know,
favorite term created. Then and still used today, to
refer to people who oppose aggressive War, Broad and
Universal military Empire. And the idea that they were
German sympathetic opposition, instead of being the
pro-american opposition, the allegation that they were
receiving money from Nazi Germany, which is still
something you here called about today and equivalence relation
between the America First committee as domestic and
wholesome. And Ation.
As I was, whatever was ever found in this country, being
made comparable to the German American bun, which was just a
Nazi stand-in. And all of these things, helping
to engineer the public attitudes against the position of America
First, and being more sympathetic, to it being
involved in the war. And of course, probably most
importantly actually forging documents to be given to the
administration to a And the Roosevelt administration's and
the White House's push to get the United States involved in
the war and that, including foraging to document.
Specifically one was alleged plan by Nazi Germany to conquer
South America and lay forth all these new German colonies, which
they would then use to threaten the United States and new plan
by Hitler that alleged they would abolish all the world's
religions Hinduism Christianity, Islam, everything and create a
new religion based around. Hitler in the swastika.
These were documents that we know in arguably uncontroverted
Lee were produced by the British government as fake news and
passed to the White House and that Roosevelt used in a
well-publicized speech in the fall of 1941 to help sway
American public opinion to become.
More interested in joining the war effort and see Nazi Germany,
more of a military threat than they arguably worth the time.
And I'll a fourth, the case in the article, which is would be
disputed on whether or not Roosevelt knowingly, used false
documents. I believe the evidence is very
strong that he completely knew what he was doing.
But there I'm sure there's other arguments saying, being unable
to know the full inner workings of FDR's, mind that he was just
as duped as every as Everyone else and people can read the
piece and find out for themselves.
But this isn't an argument that still goes on today.
I remember just being a kid and watching a special on the
History Channel where they talked about finding talked
about FDR speech and the German plans to invade South America or
how and Hitler's bunker. When American troops went in,
they found a globe with a swastika drawn over South
America. Use of the plans to, you know,
take over and you know it's all bunk.
None of it's true. It's all just War propaganda
that because it served the interests of the
internationalists of the interventionists that was never
really debunked in the public mind.
Even though we have the archival records, we have the research,
we have the Memoirs, we have all the information to prove what it
is and they can't argue it so they'd rather just not bring it
up. So even though the thesis of my
article is B tried and true. Through not original to me.
I think I was very happy to write the piece just to get the
information more out there in the public mind and put it to
people our age. And just everyone today that
these arguments and this history is important because the same
things that happened back then or in all likelihood still going
on right now. There is a book published in
1947 titled Pearl Harbor. The story of the secret War by
George Morgenstern. It says, in his diary entry of
November 25th 13 days before, Pearl Harbor Stimson, referring
to Henry Stimson. The Secretary of War expressed
The Dilemma in the baldest terms, describing the war
cabinet meeting in the white house.
He stated there the president brought up entirely the
relations. The Japanese he brought up the
event that they were likely to be that we were likely to be
attacked perhaps as soon as next Monday.
For the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without
warning and the question was what we should do.
The question was how we should maneuver them into the position
of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to
ourselves? And that's why Hawaii was such a
convenient location because it was not in America.
A state at the time it was more of a colony or just a
geographical in that had a base on it.
So they always had plausible deniability while they could be
simultaneously, provoking them. And then on page, 30 9
Morgenstern says, Japan had obligingly.
Provided the solution for President Roosevelt's, dilemma
Stimson expressed his reaction to the Jap attack which was
costing 3,000. American lives with the utmost
frankness, he wrote in his diary, when the news first.
Name that Japan had attacked us. My first feeling was of relief
that the indecision was over. And that a crisis had come in a
way, which would unite all our people.
This continued to be my dominant feeling in spite of the news of
catastrophes, which quickly developed for.
I feel that this country United has practically nothing to fear,
while the apathy and divisions start up by unpatriotic men.
Had been hitherto very discouraging.
Why are you familiar with the thesis?
That Pearl Harbor was intentionally provoked, I am
familiar with the thesis. I have not done the legwork to
go in, read the complete works of the revisionist, who have
investigated the Pearl, Harbor pre-planned thesis, I think it
is Acknowledged by all historians, Pro and anti FDR.
That Roosevelt favored us entry into the war as early as 1939
and inarguably by 1941. He believed it was the, in the
interests of the United States and, of course, himself to
involve the US and the war to benefit Britain, and the other
allies against the Axis powers. I think it's incontrovertible.
And not disputable based on things like stimson's Memoirs
and other primary documents from the time that the Roosevelt
administration purposely favored, the souring of
relations between the United States and Japan throughout 1941
in response to Japanese expansionism in the Pacific and
their aggressive behaviors towards China, Britain and other
powers seizing colonies and the like and that they did not favor
any kind of reproach meant. Even though Was a possibility at
the time. So I think and historians will
defend that as even though Roosevelt favorite getting into
the war getting into. The war was a good thing.
So FDR's, still a hero and one of our greatest presidents and
whether you believe that can come down to a matter of
politics, but speaking about history and what can be proved
and not proved while I fully agree and acknowledge that
Roosevelt favored, United States entry into the war and certainly
help. Sabotage American diplomacy and
overseas efforts to help engineer US entry into the war.
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty on whether you
Roosevelt say purposely, put the in almost the entirety of the US
Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor to make it easier for the Japanese
to attack and want to fail. Swing or whether definitively
the codes. The Japanese codes were broken,
sufficiently to have full. Knowledge of the attack and that
the administration and the White House sat on it.
So the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor and catch the
military Garrison there with their pants down.
I'm not fully convinced of that. Part of the thesis.
I know many fine historians have been convinced by it, but I
haven't done personally enough research to say that that that
is definitively, in my opinion. Currently, I'm predisposed to
say it's a I don't fully agree with that position at this time.
Two more pieces of evidence that I want to give on this issue.
Here is the New York Times. January 2nd, 1972, the article
is titled War entry plans, laid to Roosevelt.
This is a meeting between Winston, Churchill and Franklin.
Roosevelt in Canada. In that they go give the date
here. I believe it was August of 1941.
Churchill says he Roosevelt obviously was determined that
they You should come in the president.
Had said he would wage war, but not declare it and that he would
become a more and more provocative.
If the Germans did not like it, they could attack.
American forces later, saying everything was to be done to
force an incident. Finally, the president has taken
this very well and made it clear that he would look for an
incident which would justify him in opening hostilities.
The final piece of Evidence which I have for the intentional
use of our Pearl Harbor, being something that was set up in
hopes of bringing the usn toward.
This is a document titled. The McCulloch memo it was made
public in 1999 by a veteran, Robert Stinnett.
In a book, titled day of Deceit, the document says it has a seven
things that the u.s. can do. With its relation to Japan, give
all possible Aid to Chinese government Shanghai.
Check complete embargo with all us, trade with Japan and
collaboration with similar embargoes and posed by the
British Empire. The reason that this is not just
some Kook writing a memo to himself.
The majority of these planks were actually implemented into
the Roosevelt administration, most popularly, the export
Control Act of 1940, the document Ends by saying if by
these means Japan could be led to commit and overt Act of War.
So much the better at all events we must be fully prepared to
accept the threat of war. That is my general justification
for having such a high likelihood that this was
intentionally provoked and you would think that if government
is here to protect us and keep us safe and then they don't keep
us safe. While Roosevelt would have had
made sure that tons of people were fired.
He would have stepped down. He said I didn't even do, my
basic duty of keeping you safe. I hereby resign, we got to, you
know, what have a total overhaul and what could I have done
better and we owe people reparations for not holding up
our end of the social contract. It's like there's not even an
apology that it's complete psychopathy, so it really does
fit with the character of these people.
And then they use conscription again, leading to 400,000
military members dying in the second world war.
So, What else do we can? We learn from the second world
war Pearl, Harbor Roosevelt's attitude Churchill's
interference with what are some other takeaways I think the
primary take away when it comes to World War Two is that it is
incumbent on Americans who want to know more to go out and learn
more themselves. We are taught not only in the
public school system, but just in the wider culture, The myth
of World War Two, as the good War where the United States was
merely sitting on the sidelines and enemy forces bent on world
domination, brought us Kicking and Screaming into the war and
we had no choice but to take care of business.
This is not true. This is not you know to give any
Creature Comforts to the Nazi regime or imperial Japan.
It's simply to say that during 1932 92 1941.
There were numerous complex and very passionate debates, about
u.s. foreign policy. And what the United States to do
should do to either encourage participation in the war or
discourage participation in the war.
I myself and my politics find myself fully in line with the
America First committee. And the idea that it is through
non-intervention that the United States as a nation and as a
people people can remain strong and free and I think it is the
responsibility of people today to break through those myths to
do more research and whether they find that, they believe
Roosevelt knew fully well, what he was doing on, December 7th
1941 and whether he had pre-planned, some sort of attack
whether they discover that or not, or whether they end up
believing that or not, I think it's important for people to
realize that The belt was trying to engineer US into the war and
that despite what you might hear by the special historians at NBC
and PBS and all the other court historians, trying to engineer
your country. Into a war, is not something
that makes a great president. Yeah, the sources that I look at
one of them. If you look at the US Census
Bureau, some estimates range up to 60 million deaths in the
second world war. If you start in 1933 with the
Japanese going into China and then you end in the summer of
1945, it's amazing that the good War caused so Much Death, so
much destruction gave half of Europe to Led to proxy wars in
Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan in the late 70s, and they just
brag about this generally. So one quote from Winston
Churchill, he wrote a book called The Gathering storm.
This is the very first book that came out after the world war and
in the preface. He says, one day, President
Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions
about what the war should be called.
I said it once the unnecessary War, there never was a war.
More easy to stop than that which has just wrecked.
What was left of the world? From the previous struggle, the
human tragedy reaches its climax in the fact that after all, the
exertions and sacrifices of hundreds of millions of people
and the victories of the righteous, cause we have still
not found peace or security and that we lie in the grip of even
worse. Perils than those, we have
surmounted. This is a another case that
Pacifist or people who just don't support Wars which
indiscriminate mass murder that they make one, the costs of War
are extraordinarily high and to you don't know what the outcome
is going to be. Because the people in there,
don't have the knowledge or incentives to make sure that
there is a really good outcome based on truth and freedom and
and everything else. So, but because you're not
dealing with, is it okay to steal bread to feed a starving
woman? Well, you know, Know that if you
take the bread and you give it to her, she puts it in her
mouth, she will be fed. That is a heck of a lot
different than saying, well, what's going to happen if
Gaddafi and Saddam are killed and we try a regime change
operation with the Taliban. Well, okay.
Do you see how many different variables there are between,
saving the starving Woman by giving our piece of bread?
Yes, it's a non-aggression principle violation, but then
there's another huge violation of the freedom principle.
And you have no clue what the results are going to be.
So I think the work you did on these two, are these three
articles rather, we have one more and now why would add to
that real quick? That not only is it a problem of
not being able to witness the consequences?
It's the confusion of goals and what we're trying to achieve and
that's I mean it's such a u.s. foreign policy and to discover
more about that, I would recommend the Great Book enough
already by Scott Horton. Great guy people check Have to
realize how schizophrenic our foreign policy has been during
the global war on terror and going back, just the past 40
years at least. But this confusion of goals and
applying that to World War 2 was the goal of the Allied powers to
ensure free and Democratic Poland, unmolested by Foreign
aggressors such as Nazi Germany. That didn't happen, Poland began
over, 40 year military occupation, by the Soviet Union.
At the end of the war, was the destruction.
What was the complete destruction of the Nazi regime?
The goal? We were completely successful in
that and one of the results was, of course, as you mentioned, the
Soviet occupation of all of Central and Eastern Europe was
the goal, the complete neutering of Imperial Japan and the
Japanese empire again. We were successful and one of
the consequences of that was more open space for the rise of
communist China and the argument Over whether was the goal simply
to make the United States, the preeminent military dick, Tres
of the of planet Earth again. We are successful at least for
several decades, but was that a good thing?
So it's people even in defending World War Two and other Wars,
they're confused about what they're trying to achieve and we
can't it's hard to even discuss on well what went wrong, when we
don't even know what we were trying to do, right?
For those unfamiliar Neville. Chamberlain's, original
justification on, September 3rd. 1939 was declaring war on
Germany, because they violated polish independence, by entering
Danzig an area, the size of Maryland that was 95% German,
not that I support invasions or anything.
But I mean, don't pretend that this was just totally out of
nowhere and it was just a blatant power grab against the
will of the people. So much important information.
Finally, one other article of yours that I really, really
appreciated was called the child sex trafficking Scandal, America
forgot. What is this article about this?
Article is about the kidnapping of Johnny, Gosch young Iowa,
paperboy in the early 1980s and it's connections to the Franklin
Scandal, which was a child sex trafficking scandal in 1980s?
Nebraska locate. Realized in a Omaha and focused
on the Franklin Federal. Credit Union was, which was a
bank in the area led by mr. Lawrence E King who was one of
the rising stars in the Republican Party he sang the the
national song at the 1984 Republican, National Convention
was one of the leaders in several black, Republican groups
and was charged and convicted of embezzling, 40 million dollars
from the Franklin Federal Credit Union and was also investigated
for being one of the ringleaders of a child sex trafficking
operation where he would lead several well, many Miners and
take On flights to sex parties, in Washington, d.c.
New York, Chicago. Other major centres, where they
were forced to have sex with and do drugs with some of the elite
leaders in politics Finance, the police big business, Etc.
And the allegation that this was a massive cover-up of this
scandal. And for more research, I I
definitely recommend everyone. Read the article, I was very
happy about that. I've called it the most
important article I've ever read.
Unfortunately about the most unsavory topic I've ever
covered. But for a longer dispensation, I
definitely recommend everybody check out the Franklin Scandal
by Nick Bryant. It's probably the best work done
on the Scandal as a whole it's magnificently researched and has
all of the footnotes and I also recommend people check out the
Comentary who took Johnny, you can rent it on Amazon, it's an
excellent introduction to these. It'll be one of the worst things
you've ever watched and you'll regret it.
But it's still important that you do.
I love the part of the Franklin Scandal book where he just
copies almost all the primary documents that he is referencing
and the last hundred pages are just primary documents based on
the finders Cult of the interviews with Paul Benassi.
You know what I mean? We actually have names of the
kids Troy Bonner, Alicia Owens where, I mean, Paul Bonacci,
especially has a very credible case where he had said A number
of things that the media misreported, he accurately,
conveyed them to Noreen Gosch, and the FBI could not have been
less interested, even in the who took Johnny documentary.
They said, what is the update on the Johnny Gosch case, and then
the woman intervenes, but behind the scenes.
Oh, but we agree that there wouldn't be any questions about
Johnny Gosch. I mean, the, the protecting and
serving is, is just so well like that, when it comes to something
like this, Hunter, where is the best place for people to find
your collection of research? If there was one site that they
could go to? What would you recommend if ever
if anyone wanted to check out, just a complete library of all
of the Articles I've had published at various places.
You can go to Hunter Duran's s.com hu NT, ER, dren sis.com.
It's, you know, it's not fancy. It's just a list of links but
everything's there. And I encourage people to follow
me on Twitter at Tremendous just my name.
I think I have a pretty good feed and you'll catch a, you
know, any new stuff I come out with and I encourage everyone.
If you have a couple extra dollars donate to the
libertarian Institute, you know, help me and Keith, keep doing
great work that you like. And if you have more dollars, go
to bring our troops home dot U, s-- the website where I have my
full-time gig and contribute, a few dollars to America's
veterans who are trying to bring our troops home.
From these endless Wars and become a supporting member of
the 10-7 Club, our supporters group, just go to the Donate tab
at, bring our troops home dot u-s, contribute a couple bucks
and you know support the libertarian Institute support
bring our troops home support libertarian organizations who
are trying to do good after many, many decades, centuries of
people in Washington, d.c. doing bad.
Hunter Durant has thank you for your time brother, and thanks to
everyone for watching Keith and I don't tread on anyone and the
libertarian Institute.