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.