All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
43:01
Memorial Day POWs: Diana West and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Inn.
Hope you're doing well.
Now as America approaches Memorial Day I wanted to sit down with the great author Diana West and talk about some of the history of what happened in America in particular to the POWs after the Second World War because it is a challenging and ambivalent time for a lot of America emotionally in the history of war and Diana I know that you've had some personal history with all of this.
I wonder if you could introduce yourself a little bit to my listeners and then tell a little bit about what moves you so much about today.
Yes, thank you.
I'm delighted to.
I have to confess that this period really from the commemoration of Victory in Europe Day, which would be May 7th in reality, although we celebrated on May 8th due to Soviet appeasement, which we can talk about, through to Victory in The Pacific Day, Victory over Japan Day, August 8th.
It always makes me uneasier.
It has since I wrote the book, American Betrayal, which now is, I think, believed today is perhaps its anniversary.
It's six years old today.
And in that period, in the period of research that preceded my writing this book, I came to understand, in particular this period of time, and so much else, but this period of time is when we celebrate, we commemorate, we remember what I have learned to be, and I believe documented, to be a tissue of big lies.
In fact, so many and so big that really we should talk about it as a horse blanket, a wool horse, heavy horse blanket of big lies, not just a tissue.
So much false history that has been twisted to manipulate us, the people,
And it comes to a head really on Memorial Day because, of course, we're commemorating the fallen, the fallen war dead, and many of them go back to World War II and, indeed, this victory in Europe Day to victory over Japan Day period where we especially snap our salutes and celebrate the, of course, as we should, the bravery of these lost
fathers, grandfathers, etc., husbands, sons, and so on, not really knowing the extent to which we have been betrayed.
And the piece of it, I think, that really comes to me, and this really is in my book, American Betrayal, the ultimate American betrayal, because it has to do with our POWs and MIAs.
And if we look at the month of May, really the whole spring of 1945, when we get up to this end of the war in Europe, we see this terrible progression of events by which America and Britain and the British Empire left behind probably thousands of GIs and soldiers to the Gulag of Joseph Stalin.
And this comes to, it probably is dinging in people's ears because it is such a shocking, improbable, unever spoken about kind of concept.
And indeed I will say that when I was studying this period and looking at these different acts that led to it, acts by our government, by our president, discussions with the Secretary of State and the Ambassador of Russia and the Chief Military Attaché trying to negotiate the freedom of our soldiers and, of course, British Empire soldiers, Allied soldiers, in what we might call the Red Zone.
Because remember, we have the war in Europe being the armies from the West meeting the armies from the East, the Red Army.
So we have this zone of control under Soviet forces in 1945.
And there are quite a lot of POWs running around at this point, the Germans having fallen apart and ultimately surrendered in early May.
And what happens to these men?
What happens to these men?
So these are discussions that are going on in March, especially, of 1945 forward to about June 1st.
Right so these are all of the soldiers because you know just for those who I'm sure you know the history but of course Russia was an ally of the Western powers against Germany and so these were soldiers who were captured by the Germans over the course of the war and then as the German army disintegrates towards the end of World War II the Russians who of course coming in from the east.
The Russians sweep up these POWs and as allies you would expect them of course to return the POWs who are no longer prisoners of war according to the fact that the Russians are allies.
They should be returned to the west.
They should be returned to America, to France, to the UK and so on but they weren't.
And I wonder if it's because they saw the reality of the Soviet system.
They saw the reality of the Soviet occupation.
And I always wonder if it's like, thanks very much, we'll keep our witnesses right here.
Well, that's a very big part of it.
I think it's also perhaps to keep bargaining chips for future negotiations.
It was also probably a test of wills.
It was also of a piece with what had been happening, for example, going back to World War I, where we saw doughboys after World War I came to an end.
And of course, we still had the civil war in Russia, which allies supported the white Russians against the Bolshevik revolution at that time.
And we had doughboys retained by the new Soviet Union under Lenin.
And I would just like to mention that for one particular reason, because we didn't really know exactly The extent of this kind of, well we had no experience yet with the Soviet Union, it was brand new.
In 1921, when the new Soviet Union was undergoing its civil war and broken and hungry, very hungry, they were appealing to the West for food.
And we had President Harding at the time actually made an agreement known as the Riga Agreement, this is 1921, and I think it's the only Perhaps the only American agreement with the Soviet Union in history in which the president actually demanded reciprocity in terms of our dealings, which would have been a great way to continue the rest of the century.
However, at least we had this one moment because we saw what happened.
Basically, that agreement discussed, you know, helping out with the famine and so on.
In 1921, we had this sort of discussion about reciprocity.
You be good to us, we'll be good to you, basically.
And lo and behold, we got a hundred Doughboy POWs released instantaneously.
We didn't even know they were all there.
We thought maybe we'd pick up about 20.
So we got a hundred men returned.
However, we later discovered, due to various refugee accounts and so on, that there were more.
They didn't return them all.
So you might say this was Soviet business as usual when we get up to 1945.
And of course, Stalin had other plans, of course, for Eastern Europe and all the rest of it.
But what's killing about it, to read about this history, which has been suppressed and truly taken away from the American people and the British people and the rest of the world, is the negotiations between FDR and Stalin, which we see in cables.
And I would just note that there is a point at which the American ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time, Admiral Harriman, who's not exactly considered the greatest anti-communist who ever walked God's green earth, however, at this moment, he was actually encountering lost roaming Americans in Moscow who had somehow covered hundreds if not thousands of miles attempting to get to a point of American contact.
So he had this information and he also had the human relationship and exposure to this plight that he was very exercised about.
He was trying to get FDR to do something about it.
So was General John Dean, our military negotiator at the time for POW return.
And basically, this is where the whole big lie about that there were no POWs begins, where Stalin tells FDR in a cable, oh no, you're wrong.
There are no American POWs wandering around.
That's not true.
You don't need to get planes in to a point of recovery.
You don't need to make these arrangements, because of course, things were shutting down in the so-called red zone in terms of free access.
We see the Iron Curtain, as Churchill would call it in a little while, coming down.
And so access, even among these so-called allies, was quite limited at this point.
And this is where you start to see this shutdown of information.
But this would be an obvious and blatant lie.
I mean, it's almost like a dare.
Like, you know, me saying to you, no, I have a full head of hair while on video.
You know, like it's a blatant lie because the only possibility for that to occur would to have been if all of the Allied soldiers had escaped the Germans or had fought to the death.
In other words, they'd never been cut off, they'd never been captured, they'd never surrendered, they'd never run out of ammo or food.
So the idea that in such a wide swath of military operations there would be not one single surrender of an Allied soldier to the Germans is beyond comprehension, of course, right?
So it is one of these Absolute lies that should have been called on and of course for a variety of reasons, some to do with the communist sympathizers in the West and some to do with, well, we don't want to pretend or we don't want to reveal that the ally is now betraying us to the tune of, you say, thousands of men who desperately want to get home.
So it just is kind of... I know that there's a back and forth, and then you say, of course, FDR drops the matter because he's weeks away from death.
I'm sure he doesn't know that at the time, but you just kind of... it's a bit too much of a hot potato, which is very, very tragic, of course, for all of the POWs involved.
Well, it's outrageous, and actually we don't really know who's writing cables in FDR's name at this point.
I mean, I can't say for sure that he was or someone else was doing this, but you actually have the Russian... the Soviet... the American ambassador to Soviet Union, Harriman, actually saying, What Stalin is saying is not true, repeat, not true, in a cable of March 8th.
So this springtime is very important.
You have Churchill cabling as well about how difficult it is to get to see what's going on in Poland.
And this is where a lot of allied POWs were wandering around, again, trying to make contact.
You have Harriman also cabling the Secretary of State at the time, Stettinius, Kind of an empty suit, you might say, and a creature of Harry Hopkins.
We've talked about very, very pro-Soviet, possibly a Soviet asset, in the Roosevelt White House.
But getting information and actually advocating.
Here's where, you know, the greatest thing that never happened.
Advocating exposure of conditions, exposure of the circumstances around these POWs being maltreated by the Soviet Union, our ostensible ally.
And again, not getting anywhere.
But you also have a very important moment that, again, is never taught.
When Ambassador Harriman asks Stettinius to brief our top commander, General Marshall, about the plight of the POWs.
This is very important because, speaking to your point a few weeks later, we have Marshall issue an order to any returning strays, essentially, anybody coming out of the zone, not... I should actually find the actual
the statement for you not to say anything negative about the Russians and about their treatment at the hands of the Russians so you have a real information operation being created and orchestrated not just by Stalin and the KGB etc but rather by Americans against Americans.
Okay so now this is this is the interesting thing that I've never quite figured out maybe you can puzzle it out for me because I mean your expertise in this is field is very very high.
So, generally people say, well, they didn't want to criticize the Soviets because the Soviets have been an ally and you needed to portray them as nice, kind, gentle, Uncle Joe, you know, maybe starry-eyed optimist who might, you know, be making some omelets while breaking a few eggs, put their hearts in the right place and so on.
That to me is not causal.
The fact that the Soviets were necessary to defeat Hitler, which they were, I mean the Soviet army as you know was the vast majority of the forces that defeated Hitler's Germany, but so the fact that you have to ally with extremely unsavory characters Doesn't mean that you then have to propagandize everyone into thinking that they're wonderful.
I mean, Churchill said, of course, about Stalin, he said, look, if Hitler invaded hell itself, I would find something nice to say about the devil.
So he recognized, Churchill recognized the Soviets as sort of an evil empire, as they were later characterized by Reagan.
So the fact that they had to ally, as they felt, with the Soviets to defeat Hitler doesn't necessarily mean that they then had to propagandize them as wonderful folks.
They could have said, you know, we're going to hold our nose, we're going to make a deal with the devil in order to defeat a worse devil, but we're going to keep an eye on them, we're going to fight them hard.
And this pro-Soviet stuff, to me, was not necessary for the alliance.
Well, I think that's very true.
I also think that, you know, there was great A discussion about whether we did need to ally with the Soviets at the time.
America was very anti-communist going into World War II, did not like this notion of an alliance with just another Hitler in the Soviet Union.
And then when we get into various other means whereby the war might have been ended earlier with the German surrender by, we talked about this, you know, the Germans from all walks of life attempting to make deals with any ally against Hitler.
These were anti-Nazi Germans who were also anti-communist, who wanted help to keep the Soviet Union from coming into Europe.
So if you go back to that period where the Red Army is still inside the Soviet borders, 1943, when you had all this agitation among these anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans, there are a lot of questions about what might have happened.
We can't answer them, but they're questions as to what the world might have been had we not had the communist influence inside all war councils from Moscow to London to I mean from Berlin to London to Washington to Tokyo all over.
They were infiltrated both all sides putting influence on keeping the fighting going long enough to get the Soviet army into Europe and then of course later into China which is a whole another betrayal.
But speaking to this point of what they were all about, remember, FDR believed in convergence.
He thought that the free system in the West and the communist system in the Soviet Union would converge.
This was something he spoke about to many people, different kinds of people, notes made at the time by Sumner Wells, by various others that he actually spoke with.
Cardinal Spellman had minutes of a conversation talking about this convergence idea of Roosevelt's.
So they were all on board with maintaining Soviet power, hoping that we would get to this lovely, happy place.
And remember, also in 1945, in May, we have the United Nations gearing up for its first meeting in San Francisco on the That would be under the aegis of a straight-up Soviet agent named Alger Hiss, a very prominent State Department official in the United States, who we find out later was a Soviet agent ushering in the sort of baby vehicle of global governance, globalism, and so on.
Meanwhile, soon, you have Harry Dexter White, a Soviet agent, who happened to be number two at the US Treasury, working very hard to bring the global monetary system into existence, and its first institution would be the IMF, of which he would be appointed the first head.
So, we have a global system aborning, and enough people, at the highest levels, able to sort of push things around, influence things, keep things going, stop certain things, And stop information going.
We have Marshall.
I don't know where you put Marshall, but we do have him telling returning soldiers not to say bad things about the Soviet Union.
We have a very interesting exchange between ostensibly Roosevelt and one of his top emissaries during the war, a man who had been governor, a New Deal governor of Pennsylvania, George Earle, who in the spring of 1945 was sick and tired of communism.
He'd been in the East.
He'd been an emissary for Roosevelt.
He knew the truth about Katyn Forest Massacre, the massacre of Polish officer corps by the Soviets that would be blamed on the Nazis, of course, for many, many years until we finally get the truth.
But he knew the truth at the time, tried to tell Roosevelt, was rebuffed, sort of sulked for a while.
I'm, you know, being a little silly, but you know, he went quiet for a while.
At the war's end, George Earl writes a very interesting letter, which we have, to Roosevelt saying, you know, the war is coming to an end.
There's no problem with this.
I want to talk about the truth.
about our new enemy, our bigger enemy, and that would be communism led by the Soviet Union, also in the same spring of 1945.
And you have Roosevelt tell him, or someone, tell him no, don't say anything, and stop it.
And then you have the United States government go to George Earl, basically in retirement, he'd been a lieutenant commander and an emissary and so on, and order him to Samoa for the duration.
So you see The people who had information were being silenced either by orders or literally sent to Samoa.
That's not even a joke.
He was literally sent to Samoa from the Washington area.
So he couldn't possibly open his trap.
This is what's going on at war's end.
And we see the international order that Donald Trump is sort of weirdly, instinctively trying to disassemble aborning.
And that I think is at the root of the reason that our men, We're just expendable.
Something bigger at stake was on the table than lives.
And that's where I think you get to the whole gruesome, you know, kind of realization of what I call in this book, American Betrayal.
And I know it sounds sensational.
So I hope people who are interested in this will look at at least chapter 11 of American Betrayal, because I have the sources.
This is nothing theoretical.
This is all sourced to government cables.
Many of them were actually put together by the U.S.
Senate.
Back in the 90s when we were looking at the POW-MIA issue in Vietnam specifically.
Yeah, it is a terrifying thought of course to think that pro-communist agents in Western governments were prolonging the war in order to hand Eastern Europe to the Soviets.
That is a particularly chilling thought, this idea that the lives of tens of millions of people get surrendered to a horrendous dictatorship.
And, of course, the giant irony that England went to war in September 1939 to save Poland and ended up handing over Poland to the Soviets is a brutal, brutal situation.
And this idea, I don't know, it's funny because with regards to the Nazis, you know, socialistic, centrally planned, fascistic or communist-style economies always collapse.
And so part of me is like, you know, with the exception of the Holocaust, of course, part of me is like, well, couldn't they just have contained Germany and just let the system collapse because it's not a free market in the same way that they kind of worked with containment in the Soviet Union, which eventually collapsed?
Or, of course, if they'd accepted peace treaty terms in 1943, then, of course, the Holocaust would have been curtailed and the expansion of Russia would have been curtailed and I don't know.
I think that the propaganda element of the pro-Russia narrative has cost us so much in the 70 plus years since the end of the Second World War.
It's become almost impossible to talk about these things in a way that doesn't sound sensationalistic or conspiracy theory or paranoid.
And the fact that we defeated an enemy, which was communism, Overseas, while then allowing tens of thousands of Marxists to indoctrinate our young in Western universities, is just enormously tragic.
It has been such a terrible and terrifying shadow that's been cast since the propaganda, the pro-Soviet propaganda.
It started, of course, before the Second World War, but really escalated in the 40s.
Absolutely.
And there's the other half of it, which is equally as terrifying, which is, of course, the fall of nationalist China.
Another communist infiltrator, influenced rather, a cataclysm, which we know we can trace, led directly to other wars in Korea and Vietnam.
And the deaths of how many?
I mean, just give people a little bit, if you can, of that story, because it's very underappreciated.
It's like, well, you know, it just happened, you know.
And it was very much nurtured along and armed and propagandized by pro-communist elements in the State Department and elsewhere.
Give people a little bit, if you can, of that journey to basically selling one of the largest populations in the world to one of the worst dictatorships that has ever existed.
Well, it's really a mirror image of what happened in Europe, in what happened in Yugoslavia, what happened in China in terms of communist elements or pro-communist elements inside
Let's stick with America, but they really, they were really quite infiltrated in England as well and other nations, pushing a line that would ultimately benefit the communist factions in various countries, whether it's China with Mao, or whether it's Yugoslavia with Tito, or whether, you know, you can really see the pattern replayed over and over again, whereby the good guy, meaning the anti-Nazi, the anti-communist,
in Chiang Kai-shek's case, anti-Japan, imperialist Japan and so on, and anti-communist, you see the State Department people creating these false personas of the anti-communist, of the anti-Nazi, who was the anti-communist, in order to prop up and glorify the communist leaders, whether it was-- - Who were always portrayed as, this weird phrase, agrarian reformers.
It seems to be, okay, well there you have some incipient communist massive genocide bomb incoming to a country whenever you hear the phrase of agrarian reformers being.
Like people really get passionate about agrarian reform and are willing to have revolutions about agrarian reform.
I mean, it's just one of these warning phrases that you see in the literature.
You literally see it.
And this happened certainly in China in terms of the way American support was deliberately, steadily chipped away under Chiang Kai-shek, our longtime ally, fighting two wars, two fronts for more years than any other world leader, fighting the Japanese, fighting the communists, and shifting that support to the most murderous man who ever walked the earth, Mao.
So we see American support go to Mao away from Chiang Kai-shek as part of one of these other deliberate influence operations that happened just as it did in, you know, obviously with differences according to the various geopolitical situations in Europe.
So this was going on to a point where we know that FDR gave essentially Stalin a green light to seize off a giant chunk of nationalist China without even consulting our long-term ally, Chiang Kai-shek, that would be Manchuria, for going into the war on our side for about three or four or five days in August of 1945.
Absolutely no help whatsoever to the defeat of Imperial Japan.
However, for that few days of participation, they were given all manner of territory and rights in in the Asian area that would lead to, including North Korea, became a Soviet vassal state as a result of this same agreement.
And just a few years later, we had Americans and allied soldiers dying in Korea, being taken prisoner.
We have a number of prisoners from the Korean War that were never returned.
And then we also see the same thing happened in various Cold War incidents where soldiers were never returned, airmen and so on.
And then, of course, the one that really did sort of push through, at least culturally speaking, in terms of certain movies, Sylvester Stallone movies, and so on, the Vietnam War POW MIAs who did not return.
And when I first approached the subject matter, I did think it was kind of mythology.
I thought it was mostly movies.
And the more I looked at it, and the more I read into it, and tested it, and so on, and put it on paper myself, I came to understand that this was one of the most, the greatest betrayal you could imagine for a country against its own fighting men.
I mean, this was just the ultimate betrayal.
And you have any number of presidents and their administrations, factions of their administrations that have kept the seal of secrecy on this.
Now, in the George W. Bush administration, we did finally have a sort of anticlimactic report come out.
Acknowledging that, yes, in all of these wars there were Americans who did not return.
It was a very kind of unnoticed kind of report, an acknowledgement so far after the fact that it doesn't really have any traction in terms of changing the story or raising the questions of the behavior of so many of our leaders.
And it's sort of an underground story at this point, but I will note that this Memorial Day weekend we will see The final running of Rolling Thunder, which is when about 500,000 motorcycles come to Washington on Sunday, the day before Memorial Day proper, and they circle the mall in waves, thunderous waves.
It is thunder.
And many of them are carrying the POW, black POW, MIA flag.
And it is supposed to be a commemoration of their brothers left behind.
That war is so long ago.
These men are getting so old that this 2019 is going to be the last demonstration of this American betrayal.
And I've had this thought, I'm sure other people have had it too, let me just sort of pass it through your filter, let me know what you think.
It's a bit of a chilling thought, but the idea goes something like this, that if you are against American military strength, if you wish to weaken America, then the best thing to do, in a horrible kind of way, or a horrible way in general, is to provoke wars that get American troops in harm's way.
And then prevent them from executing those wars in an efficient manner.
And that's going to continually bleed American strength.
It's going to continually bleed American resources.
And in particular, it's going to make Americans war-weary, right?
Because ever since Vietnam, it's like, we don't want another quagmire like in Vietnam and so on.
And thinking about how, I mean, it was JFK who got America into Vietnam.
It was LBJ who micromanaged it to the point where the war became functionally unwinnable.
and destroyed the American military and the American will and caused a huge disintegration.
Of course that was the last time they used the draft because they kept bringing people into the war and the frustration of not being able to fight the war effectively or efficiently or withdraw.
Of course if you're not going to fight the war then come home and if you are going to stay then fight the damn war.
It is this odd little undercurrent that seems to happen on a repetitive basis that the left gets America into wars and then prevents the military from being effective in those wars thus handing a kind of quasi-victory to enemies.
I commend you for that.
Yes, I think about that all the time because the pattern is unmistakable and indeed the pattern of fighting communism abroad which became really the rallying cry of conservatives in America in the 1960s to the neglect of fighting communism at home became really the basis of being an anti-communist going forward from the 1960s.
We were just fine at home.
Communism was a problem in these far-flung countries, and we had to fight it or supply it and so on, which is not to say that necessarily every instance of that was folly.
You know, you'd have to go case by case, but the actual fact, the knife was at our throat
ideologically speaking at home and systematically our counterintelligence sensibility uh... mechanism was disabled was destroyed and and you know it hit it's probably uh... another very interesting conversation to actually go through those steps because we see it quite methodically certainly from the time of senator joseph mccarthy's a political assassination if you will in the nineteen fifties forward
Honestly, systematically, for example, the military's teaching of communism to the military was taken away, was stopped, to the continual fight against the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which was really the people's only forum for trying to get information about communist activities in the United States.
These were information hearings that created the most remarkable archive of communist infiltration and subversion that You know, we certainly have.
These activities were constantly being battled and attempted to be destroyed, which they ultimately were by the early 1970s, when the final iteration of that committee was closed for good.
So we no longer had a standing committee doing this kind of work.
Well, what do you think happens with that, Stefan?
I mean, why do you think it is that we're one election away from socialism or that we're still dealing with This notion of one election away from nationalized health care, you know, one of the first things that the Bolsheviks did after the revolution in 1917 was to nationalize health care.
I mean, these are consistent patterns in terms of getting to that dictatorship that these people want to take us to.
And it does start with all of these very complex programs to essentially disarm us and to put us in harm's way where we are not protecting ourselves.
This is really kind of the crux of the larger problem, and I think it's why we see so many leftists, and you and I have talked about the red thread, people who certainly grew up under Marxist influences, participating in a cabal against Donald Trump, who, you know, as a stroke of providence, happens to be innately anti-communist to his fingertips.
He's the first one attempting to reverse this sort of global project that's been certainly surging forward uninterrupted since 1945 at least.
So this I think is why he's been such a catalyst for this explosive situation we've had in Washington since he came on the stage.
And I think it's time to start putting these things together.
So it's a big project, but I love talking to you about it.
Well, Trump, of course, his mentor, one of his major mentors, Roy Cohn, was explicitly anti-communist, and it's sort of like Joseph McCarthy with presidential power.
You saw the hysteria when Joseph McCarthy was just a senator and just doing investigations.
uh... and and now of course you see uh... somebody who uh... I don't know I mean I don't know that he's really talked explicitly about anti-communism I've not heard that but of course everybody would know his history who would be on the left because you study your enemy more than you study your ally and I think yeah and this is the book that I'll link to it below it's really really important for people to read it's hard to understand the hysteria
about Donald Trump if you don't understand the red thread that goes through the opposition to him?
He has actually explicitly talked about communist Cuba and communist China in earlier works.
I believe it was in 2000 he wrote a book, I'm thinking it's called The America We Deserve, or I may have the title wrong, but there is a book actually referenced in the red thread as well where he makes it very clear he rejects the communist system and
I think that when you get to his basic agenda to restore the nation-state, that in itself is the biggest weapon against communism that has never really been tried in the sense that since 1945, the global world order, the liberal world order, everybody in the establishment is trying to save, has been all about diluting, neutralizing nation-states and creating the big collective run by the global elite.
You see somebody attempting to reinstate a notion of borders, immigration control, manufacturing.
I mean, these are the building blocks of anti-communism, ultimately.
And when you see his sort of take on trade going back 30 years and in some of his writings, you get this understanding.
It's innate.
He may not see it.
It's also kind of interesting that one of his mentors as a pastor was Norman Vincent Peale.
His family went to the Marble Collegiate in Manhattan.
Norman Vincent Peale is probably, if people even know his name today, the power of positive thinking, was his big breakout national event.
He was a huge influence back in the day.
However, he was very well known, going back to at least the 1930s, as an enemy, a political enemy of Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to socialize the economy, to tear apart the Constitution, to pack the Supreme Court.
He was an enemy of Len Lease.
He was involved politically as well as being a pastor in some of these kind of Groups at the time that were essentially nonpartisan.
In fact, they had quite a wide spectrum of participation from different political figures.
But it's quite interesting that he was known as a big anti-communist and that that would be in the 1970s the church that Donald Trump gravitated toward.
It's just, I think it's like to like in this case.
And of course, James Comey, one of his nemeses in the anti-Trump conspiracy, His big influence was Reinhold Niebuhr, who was known for his Marxist kind of sermonizing, if you will, and his very pro-communist politics in the 1930s, and his antagonism toward anti-communists like Joseph McCarthy.
So it's actually perfect.
They line up perfectly in terms of being on opposite sides of the communist-anti-communist divide, whether they're conscious of it.
And I would say a lot of this is unconscious at this point, because we don't talk like this.
If it hadn't been for Ocasio-Cortez, I don't even know if we could have this conversation.
She brought up, you know, we get to talk about socialism for the first time and communism due to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.
So now the right can do it too, basically.
But it's really an interesting thing when you line them up.
Take away the labels.
That's where they line up.
And it's, I think, again, why Trump, out of any other politician, has triggered this kind of reaction.
Well it's interesting too because a lot of people don't really understand the globalist approach and I think that one of the main reasons why you want to take down the nation-state, why you want to take down borders, why you want to have this general ebb and flow of humanity across the globe is because when you have different systems you can compare their worth.
There's empirical evidence as to which system works better and which system works worse, right?
So I mean you look at early 20th century American growth and then you compare it to say the Soviets or the horrors of Chiang Kai-shek's Cambodia or Cuba or anything like that.
So then you have clear empirical evidence.
Now those who want power don't want the evidence of how well countries do when power is restrained.
Because then not only will there be a brain drain towards those countries, but the people in their own countries will look at those other countries, particularly now you have the internet and the communication of the Western way of life into the Middle East, as it was into the Soviet Union, as one of the great stimulants for people saying, well why can't we have that kind of cool stuff?
Why are we stuck in this horrible theocracy or socialist dictatorship or communist dictatorship?
And so the breakdown of the multifaceted experiments in various modes of political I think that's really true, and I think there also are the zealots who wish to export this kind of system as well.
as common denominator, so the system appears without empirical opposition. - I think that's really true, and I think there also are the zealots who wish to export this kind of system as well.
If we look at the New Deal as a power grab on the American economy as a response to the Great Depression, and then we see, we move into a war footing by 1941 in the United States,
You start to see in the aftermath of the war the same people who were very involved in the New Deal and war strategy, suddenly they moved to the UN and this notion of exporting a New Deal kind of socialization to the countries that are now going to be rebuilt according to the Marshall Plan and other aid programs.
It's really kind of a of a fruition of so many of these utopian, communist, Marxist, Bolshevik, progressive visionaries' whole life goal to see this kind of thing go forward.
And yes, they don't want to have the competition of freedom, of a place that enshrines liberty, of a constitutional government, republic, as the United States was.
And, you know, I say was just because we're quite a remnant of that at this moment.
If it's possible that we could literally go to socialism as a result of election, you know that all the restraints imposed on our government by the Constitution have been one by one by one broken.
And that is the tragedy of this.
So now we're kind of in this moment of trying to wake people up and fight off demagogues.
So it's very, very, very dangerous.
But yes, I would agree with that and put it in kind of a An outlook of, you know, even more, just because it's just this whirling vortex of what they call progress, right?
Well, that's a powerful analogy.
I read somewhere on the internet that people like you and I are like the sheepdogs trying to keep the wolves from the sheep.
Yeah.
And, you know, the more we can turn the sheep into sheepdogs, the more we can fight off the wolves, because if they break through us, people will be very shocked and appalled, and then we'll recognize their value, but it may be too late.
So, I really want to thank you for the chat.
Can you tell people about your books?
I'll link to them below.
Highly, highly recommended.
They'll keep you up.
It's more gripping than just about any thriller you'll ever read because truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
Just tell people a little bit about your books.
I'll link to them directly in the show notes and again they come highly recommended.
Oh yes, thank you so much.
Yes, well American Betrayal is really the place that I learned this new outlook on the world that was essentially Um, an exercise in overturning conventional wisdom, court history, or these big lies.
It's almost a history of big lies and how they've come to manipulate us.
And it, it, it goes back to, uh, the 1930s forward to look at the impact of communist aversion on our government and, and culture through the war, how communist influence changed a war fighting strategy of World War II to have this Soviet victory really.
in Europe, and just a little while later, a few years later, in China, when Mao comes to power at the end of the 1940s.
And then through the Cold War, right on up to the POW question, as it exploded in the early 1990s, when we were close, but we didn't get anybody back.
And then we look at the red thread, which I just put out, which is really kind of son of American betrayal, because it examines how it was that When the original swamp was being drained, and I speak about the post-World War II period, where you had Republican Congresses come in, and actually it was Republicans and Democratic lawmakers, Senate and House, looking at this communist infiltration.
We're supposed to think it's the Red Scare, and it's all a big joke, and Joseph McCarthy was the most evil man in American history, when in fact he was probably one of its greatest patriots, and very effective in terms of Finding communists who were on the federal payroll in the defense industry Etc.
I mean this was this was really what he was all about so he had to be destroyed That was the first swamp and and ultimately the anti-communists were essentially defeated in my view in fast forward to 2016 and the red thread I'm looking at this moment of exposure of these
people who are their heirs, the ideological heirs of those communist infiltrators, Nellie Orr, Christopher Steele, James Comey, John Brennan, and so on, who have been organizing in this strange cabal that we have not quite, well, we've not by a long shot really come to understand.
But what I did in this book was try to investigate whether I could find ideological profiles to
Explain to people I didn't know if that would be the case But I was shocked at what I found from open sources interviews writings by these people and put together kind of a profile of ideological profile of many of the anti-trump conspirators and It's very short It's about a hundred pages, and I'm hoping people really start to listen and read it.
It's also an audiobook because Motivation is something that is missing in all the discussions of who did what to whom.
Motivation and why this is happening and R is the left, the communists, the Marxists playing for keeps in their effort to take down Donald Trump.
Spoiler.
Yes.
Yes, they are.
Well, thanks a lot.
Always a great pleasure to chat and we've talked and we're going to do a show upcoming about how our childhoods were basically trapped inside a giant matrix of communist propaganda, which we mistook for art.
So we're going to work on that and thanks again for your time today.
Have a great weekend.
I appreciate the conversation.
Oh, thank you, Stefan.
▲
Export Selection