British Imperial Expert: The Force Behind King Charles, Iran & Every War Since 1900 | PBD #788

I've never seen anything like this. >> What do you mean by that >> in terms of competence, coherence, singularity of purpose? >> How much of this comes down to money? How much of it comes down to power? And how much of it is, if you got money, you got the power anyway. So, how do you view what they're solving for [music] long term? >> They really believe that we're no better than animals. They just happen to have [music] blue or blood, so they get to run us. What I'm trying to figure out is who's influencing [music] who, who's elevating who, who has control over who. >> These binaries are out there to keep you from looking at again what's generating the shadows on the wall. >> I I have a very very hard time thinking Britain has the same kind of control and influence like they did before. >> I think for long term it's even more evil. I mean they use the money, they use the power, but ultimately it comes down [music] to an image of man. Today we have a special guest with us, Susan Kokinda from Prometheian Action, whom I get text messages of from my sister saying you have to see what she has to say. So Susan, it's great to have you here on the podcast. >> Thanks for having me. So for some people who don't know, can we just qualify one thing that you're not right? Because you know some people may look at you and say is this is this Q from James Bond? Can you just qualify that you're not Q from James Bond? It's very important. >> I'm definitely not Q. >> Okay. Well, thank you for doing that because we don't want, you know, people to go out there start saying why is Pat talking to Q from James Bond. But your analysis, the way you break things down, very very interesting, very different. and and you know your story is very unique because you were is it true that you were at the uh uh RFK senior's campaign. You were working with them in 1968 and you were there when the assassination happened working with the campaign not physically there but you were on the campaign as well as uh at the White House press pool at GW hospital in 1981 after Ronald Reagan the assassination attempt at the same hotel that the president just had the attempt a few days ago. Are those two true that you were you you were there at those two events? >> That's true. I was in San Francisco with the campaign in 1968. Uh and then uh when the president was shot in 1981, I was covering a hearing on Capitol Hill and all of a sudden I got the call, head over to GW Hospital and find out what's happening. So yes, I was there for both. >> Now at the time where where was you where were you at politically? What was your cause? because you know was it I want to help America because of these three issues. what was important to you at the time both in ' 68 as well as 81 >> really both was the same thing which is that I sensed even at the young age which I was then in 1968 uh I I sensed that something had gone very wrong obviously with the assassination of JFK that there was a change in direction in the country and I didn't understand what it was early but I I knew there was just something that was going on that was taking us in direction that was different which had characterized especially the early JFK period which was progress which was science which was technology you know I was a child of the space program I wanted to be an astronaut and and somehow all of that began to change you began to see the emergence of the rock drug sex counterculture which just seemed very strange to me um you know this kind of hedonistic approach as opposed to this sense that the nation has a mission and you should devote yourself to a mission not to what makes you feel good. So you know again it was unformed for a while. Um but then as I become more politically attuned and astute, you know, I began to dig more deeply uh into what is causing this. And you know, by the time I was uh in Washington DC in 1981, it was pretty clear that there was uh a deeper historical fight going on than I think most people were aware of. >> And >> and I think they are now with Donald Trump. Now you see the globalists. Now you see that there's it's more than the newspaper headlines. It's more than the way the mainstream media portrays things. >> Susan, what's different and what's the same? >> You uh from when what's different in this? >> Give me both of them. From 6881, what's different from today with President Trump with the three different assassination attempts he's had in ' 68 and in 81? >> Uh very very different. I mean because look look the MAGA movement has gone through a series shall we say of walls of fire uh you know they went through COVID they went through the stolen election they went through J6 they went through the you know the butler assassination I think there's a layer of the American population which has really grown up you know which is in increasingly looking behind the curtain and saying this stuff just isn't random you know it's like lone assassins I mean give me a uh you know people are are are are ready to de dive more deeply into it. One of my friends that I do podcasts with, um, Blaine Holt says, uh, you know, if we were talking about the things we're talking about today, people would be putting, back then, people would be putting tin foil hats on us. But now you've got millions, if not tens of millions of people thinking more deeply about what is actually driving these forces. And again, you want to make the comparison. Look at the comparison between how people have to live today and how people lived, say, in the middle 1960s. In the middle 1960s, a bluecollar income like here in Detroit, could raise a family of five or six comfortably, one income, and and have the confidence that your children would have a better life than you did if they worked hard. You know, what have we gone through since NAFTA, since the 2008 bailouts, and everything that comes with that globalist system? You need three or four incomes and you still can't make ends meet. You know, you're you're you're you're giving half your income to daycare because mom has to work two jobs and dad has to work three jobs. And I think the support for Donald Trump, especially his his uh recorded victories in 2016 and 2024 were, you know, a very clear response from a broad swath of the American population. You know, including people who didn't used to vote Republican, like bluecollar workers here in Michigan who said, "I don't want to live like this any longer." you know, I want I want that world where, you know, you've got progress, where you've got stability, where you've got opportunity, and you don't have to scramble, you know, like a rat to figure out how to get to the end of the maze. So, I I think that's sort of the foundation of the fact that that then opens a lot of people's minds to the fact that there's a bigger picture here. And I I always go back to a quote from Scott Besson uh where he gave an interview about it was actually about a year ago um and he said look the Democratic Party is to comp the Democratic Party's strategy is to compensate the loser. He said but I don't think the lower 50% are losers. I think it's the I think they're winners but the system is broken [clears throat] and we're going to fix the system. And I think that's extremely important because once people realize that it's systemic, the problems that have ruined their lives or made their lives incredibly difficult, it's an entire system. It's not their fault. It's an entire system. And this administration is committed to changing it. So it, you know, it creates a different kind of environment, I think, where people can think more deeply. Okay, well, what was wrong with the old system and what is it that President Trump is trying to do? That's what we do at Prometheian Action. We try and sort of translate for people, hey, here's something that it looks new. It's frankly not. Used to be called the American system, but here's what the president is doing, and it actually is transformational. and maybe you need to calm down and hold on while this transformation takes place. Now question for you that's very interesting when you're breaking that down and I want to go a little bit deeper into that as well but a lot of times today if you were to look at different podcasters or influencers if you watch mainstream media the enemy is going to be you know China or Qatar or Russia right that's going to be the enemy that they'll not even cutter it's more going to be China or Russia if you look at podcasters streamers independent content creators you will hear Israel and you're here Qatar, but when you listen to you, you say Britain. Even one of the videos you recently did, you said the hidden hand behind Trump's assassination attempt and it goes to Britain and no one is saying that. So, nobody is even talking about Britain, but you are. Tell us why Britain? Why why are you thinking Britain's behind the third assassination attempt? Well, if if you actually look at the history of assassination attempts in the United States, and we actually have an ebook on the Prometheian Action website, which is entitled, it is the British who murder our presidents. Uh, and if if you look at President Trump's comments after the assassination, both in the press briefing and then in the outtakes from the 60 Minutes show, you know, he says it's only consequential presidents who get assassinated or are there are attempts. and he cites Abraham Lincoln and he cites William McKinley and that's extremely important because those are the the probably the most important American system presidents in our history. Now why do I say that when you ask me about the British? Because if you look at the 19th century and uh you know our our our own the the the decades of our own founding there were two systems in the world and it wasn't capitalism or communism. That didn't come those phrases didn't even come along till Karl Marx. The two systems in the world were the American system versus the British imperial system. And the British imperial system was based on power, money, perpetual wars, controlling resources, keeping countries backward so that they could extract raw materials or whatever from them was based on free trade. Uh and the American system was based on a different set of principles which is that your economy is not measured by money. Your economy is measured by what are you producing? Are you advancing? Is your population getting healthier? Is it getting more productive? Is it getting more prosperous? Does it have more opportunities? And is that a durable policy that is going to continue in the future? Those were the two systems. And by the end of the 19th century, the American system was really the wonder of the world. You had Russia, China, Japan, Germany, France. You had leaders in all of those countries explicitly following the American system. Now, you know, I ask your viewers to think, were you ever taught the American system in school? Of course not. It's been written out. Why? Because the British imperial system recognized it was a threat. One of the things they did is they assassinated our presidents like Lincoln, like Garfield, like McKinley by creating an environment, creating anarchists, creating radicals where you don't necessarily have to, you know, give them the the, you know, the the the marching orders directly, but you create an environment in which people are out there ready to take out a president. Does that sound familiar? That, you know, that's the environment that that we're in today. But the the purpose of it, the reason for it was to crush the American system from spreading because the American system is based on Donald Trump's stated policies. I want a world of sovereign nations working with each other as individual nations working out their differences, but based on actual economic development. And if you have a world of sovereign nations, then this globalist financier parasite, which is simply a modern-day version of the British Empire, is not going to function. And so they have a kind of feral, you know, hatred of American system policies. That's where it comes from. Then once you sort of put yourself in that setting of this fight between the two systems in the world, you discover a whole lot. You know, if you look more carefully at the role of British intelligence, British policy throughout the 20th century, you know, let's just take the crisis in the Middle East who created the Muslim Brotherhood. That was a direct operation from British intelligence in the 1920s, you know, and you you look at a whole array of different policies, you simply start pulling the string, you know, where where you're no longer blacking out this idea that there is a British imperial system still functioning. Once you entertain that hypothesis and you start looking at the world, a lot of things seem to make sense, which is why I think a lot of people respond to our our work by saying, "Oh my gosh, you've put the pieces together for me." >> Can can you go a little bit deeper on the Muslim Brotherhood being started by the Brits in the 20s? >> Well, you you even you know, you can go back even to the 19th century. I mean if you look at the question of radical and political Islam uh you'll find the hand of the British all over it. I mean one of the more famous figures in this this is gets into the 20th century is Lawrence of Arabia you know te Lawrence who was British intelligence um I can't remember his first name Kim Philby the famous you know uh double triple agent spy in Britain his father was one of the key handlers of these kinds of networks in the Middle East uh in an earlier period in the 19th century the British proconsul of Egypt uh I think it was Lord Cromer but he was d he was a bearing from the bearing bank. He was one of the people who built up political radical Islam and it was always used as a tool against the nationalist forces in countries like Egypt and elsewhere who were trying to develop independent economically strong nations. People like Nasser, people like Mubarak for example. Um so I mean there's there have been some excellent books written on this um uh one called the devil's game by Robert Drifus and the other one whose name escapes me at the moment but it's called secret agents where they go in depth into the role of British intelligence in creating radical and political Islam which then becomes a very convenient tool for them. >> Now how much when you say the Brits are you saying the royal family? How much is it the bankers? How much is it the wealth? How much is the Rothschild? Who specifically was playing these games? We know the story of what Rothschilds did during war to say, "Hey, you know, Napoleon is losing the war and then everybody started selling off the bonds and they came and they 10xed their fortune overnight." So, we know those games they play to create a lot of wealth. This is before there was regulation. But when you say the Brits, who specifically are you saying has the power to do some of these assassination attempts? Is it the money or is it more politics or royalty? >> It's it's it's it's like a it's like a corporation. Um you know, and everybody plays their part. Uh in my uh show yesterday, I referenced a new book which has just conveniently come out, you know, just as King Charles is arriving in Washington DC. You referenced it. It's entitled uh Queen Elizabeth and Her Presidents, the hidden h hand behind history. And the author documents, Queen Elizabeth was more thoroughly briefed with daily intelligence briefings, national security briefings. She was on top of the nuclear contingencies. You can bet she had, you know, her hands all over the five, there it is, the five eyes operation. And this author, you know, I I I haven't read the book yet. I've just read the blurbs and watched a couple of interviews because I just discovered it two days ago. But, you know, I don't know if this author is saying this is a good thing or she's neutral. You know, I don't know the particular political take in terms of this, but she describes how uh the the the monarchy uses what they call soft power >> to influence presidents, but then yes, you have the city of London, you have the financial power that's embedded in the city of London. And you know this this is one of the things which I think illuminates what the Iran conflict is all about because the the city of London Lloyds of London the you know the people who set the oil prices with Brent crude which is set in London and has nothing to do with the delivery of a barrel of oil you know it's just speculation they've used the instability the choke point of the straight of Hormuse to extract what the president's uh trade adviser Peter Navaro calls a um a terror premium basically a terror tax >> where the p if you if you look at the the price of a gallon of oil here in the United States about 20% of that comes from the pricing from the Brent futures market which is in London which has nothing to do with the physical production of oil unlike you know West Texas pricing uh and it has to do with the insurance uh of Lloyds of London which basically had a monopoly prior to this. So that that's sort of the financial end of the thing. Then you get the intelligence side of things which is MI6 and MI5 which are pretty legendary and which you know I think up until the Trump administration were pretty much joined at the hip with the CIA. And then you have much more of the soft power which is the media, you know, and the way that they shape the political environment. And and one of the things that that that this British elite have mastered and and you know been masters of for decades is psychological warfare. You know the way that they they shape narratives, the way that they well look at the war going on inside MAGA from the people who used to be MAGA, you know, like Tucker Carlson and MTG and others. You know, this is just pure psychological manipulation in order to divert the MAGA movement from the task at hand, which is that everything that this administration is doing strategically and economically is aimed at breaking the power of this modern-day British Empire or what this administration bluntly says is the globalist system. This is big. I mean, the last president who seriously threatened the global reach of this imperial system was William McKinley. Now, you know, if John Kennedy had long lived long enough, might might that have been a serious threat? Probably. Um, but what the president is doing right now, especially with this cabinet, this this team is extraordinary. And I always tell people, you know, turn off your social media feed and just watch the cabinet meetings, read the executive orders, read the presidential directives, pay attention to what they're actually saying and doing. It is historic. And they want you diverted. You know, is it Israel or is it Qatar? You know, that that is not the issue. The issue is these two systems before the world. >> Wow. I mean, you have to know if you say that to the average consumer of content on social media today, no one's pointing at the Brits. So, if you're saying Tucker and MTG and and others, what are how would the Brits get a hold of them? How would MI6 do that? What would be their methods? I mean, that's a you know, I I don't see any connection there, but maybe you're seeing something that we're not. >> Well, I think it's more of this question of you create a system. >> Okay? you know, which is the system where people get paid, where they get influence, where, you know, they, you know, they live their lives. You create that, you know, sometimes I compare it to Stockholm syndrome, [laughter] you know, where, you know, you you've lived in this system your whole life. If you buck the system, you're going to lose money. You're going to lose your job. I mean, with Tucker, honestly, I think Tucker was terrified after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. you know, you you you you also play on people's psychological vulnerabilities. So again, it's not like you you get a phone call from, you know, the head of MI6 saying, "Tucker, this is what you're going to say today." That's not the way it works. You know, you you create a system that people long >> I'm I'm actually really curious how it works because if if let's just say the Brits have been doing this the longest, you have to know that automatically others are going to duplicate what they're doing. So, you know, Russia's going to be paying attention. China's going to be paying attention. Cutter's going to be paying attention. You everybody else is going to be paying attention at the propaganda game that Brits have played. And the Brits played it against Iran as well. So, Iran are paying attention to see what they're doing. So, but what is the playbook? If if you were to say the playbook of doing first you do this, then you do this, then you do this, then you do this, what would the method be? Well, the method is to keep people sort of in the world of perceptions where all all you're doing is just reacting to what you know the the narrative is the institutions. I mean, obviously, one of the critical elements in the United States is the mainstream media, you know, completely controlled by by the globalists. And again, it doesn't have to be a direct tie to the city of London, although a lot of times if you dig deep enough, you'll find it. But it's it's to the powerful what the president has called global financier elite. Well, they run the mainstream media. You know, they they run entertainment. Um entertainment and culture is a big part of this, you know, again, because it's it's once you shape how people think, then you don't have to go in and specifically say, "Well, then think this, think this, think this." You've got them trapped in a world where uh you all you're looking at is the shadows on the wall. And that's what the media does. That's what the culture does and so on. They create the shadows on the wall and all you do is react to the shadows. what we do and what I'm pretty sure some people in the administration must understand because they wouldn't be doing the kinds of things they're doing strategically and economically is you're looking at what's generating the shadows and that is this fight between these two systems. You mentioned the Russians. They get it. Read what the Russians say about who's keeping the war with Ukraine going. You know, they're very clear. It's the it's not only the Europeans. specifically the British. They are very very clear that it is the British who are keeping this going. They're no longer saying the United States is the great wararmonger. I mean, yeah, you have a few hotheads in Russia who still say that, but the official, you know, Putin, the people who speak for President Putin. They're not pointing the finger at the United States any longer. They're pointing the the finger at the British, you know. And then in the 19th century, this had a name, and they're still playing it. It was called the Great Game. And the great game was to make sure that nations stay pitted against each other, constantly fighting so that the imperial game masters at the top could continue to play their their games. There you go. the elements of the great game which Roger Kipling outlined in Kim and um you know central Asia has been you know the Afghanistan you know southwest Asia central Asia the m east all all of this you you you look at the way the British and the French but p primarily the British rewrote the map after the Ottoman Empire broke up after World War I. It was to keep these, you know, it was they they divided countries up in the craziest ways that made no sense in terms of the different religious or ethnic or political groupings. They they shattered it in such a way it would always be a cockpit for war and that's how they do it. You mention Iran. I mean it's sort of like the classic case. You had a nationalist leader Mosedc who nationalized the oil industry. Well, believe me, the British Empire was not going to tolerate that. So he was overthrown and the sha was put in and then at a certain point you know the sha began operating from the standpoint of what is good for Iran. He wanted to use the oil revenues to build nuclear power to actually develop the country as a modern nation. So he gets overthrow you know the the you know the British are are really quite yeah Kermit Roosevelt was in on that. Um and if you actually look at the history Eisenhower was not exactly happy when he realized what was going on there. um because Eisenhower was somebody who actually had an American outlook which is why he stopped the British and the French from taking the Suez Canal in 1956. Um but you know again when when you when you sort of just shift the way you look at the world from these binaries you know communism versus capitalism, the west versus Islam, right versus left, these binaries, these binaries are out there to keep you from looking at again what's generating the shadows on the wall. And it's this historic fight between imperialism and the idea that nations and people have the right to develop for the betterment of the nation and the people, not for the betterment of some global finance or elite. >> So you you don't you don't look at it right now. That's interesting because it's globalist versus you know what we're trying to do, right? So you don't you don't look at it as you know West versus Islam. You're not looking at it as cutter as the rest. That's just a distraction to you. You know, you how much of this you you to simplify to the average person, how much of this comes down to money? How much of it comes down to power >> and how much of it is if you got money, you got the power anyway? So, how do you view what they're solving for long term? >> Well, I think for long term, it's even more evil. I mean, they use the money, they use the power, but ultimately it comes down to an image of man. I mean, if you go back through history, what what do you find with these very evil imperial systems? They they really believe that we're no better than animals. They just happen to have bluer blood, so they get to run us. But, you know, they they want a world in which people are stupid and backward so that they can control them and they can loot them. And, you know, so they don't want people ultimately educated, independent, sovereign. That's what they don't like. Uh that's why that's why they feared the American system so much because while obviously this question of the image of man man in the image of the creator as opposed to you know man is simply an animal to be manipulated by his senses which by the way is the basis of all of British liberal philosophy you know John lock Thomas Hume John Stewart Mill it's all based on the idea that we know the world only through our senses not our minds and so they create institutions to keep us trapped in that kind of thing. Um, but that im the the image of man is man in the image of the creator. Obviously that's been around since the time of Christ and in in some respects in in well actually in very real respects in earlier religions and and movements. But what do you get with the American Revolution? You actually get an economic system based on the idea that the productive powers of a nation is is the human mind is human creativity. That that that was a breakthrough to actually that was Hamilton's ideas and that actually forms the basis of a completely different kind of way of organizing your society where you're maximizing creativity. You're not maximizing money. So yeah, the the the empire uses power, they use money, they use ideologies, they they use wars, they use all of these things, but it's for the purpose of keeping their system protected from upstart sovereign nations who are likely to challenge them mortally if they get off their if they get off the ground. And when again I go back to the end of the 19th century where this idea of the American system was was consciously understood in many countries Japan's major restoration was based on the American system. Count Sergey Vitta the last economic adviser for the last Zar in Russia was a student of the American system. There were people in Italy, in France, in Germany who were students of the American system by name. And people just have to ask themselves the question, well, if this is what was dominating the 19th century, how come I've never heard of it? Because the British rewrote our history. Because the British rewrote our history. Okay, so when you're [sighs] going to the Brits rewriting history, King Charles is going to be coming in town. And when you go and you look at stuff with King Charles, his history, it's a very unique, you know, history on what things he's done. His his uh you know uh uh it's just nasty. Diana, you got him taking money from cutter, $3.2 million documented saying that money was given to me when he was a prince to go to charity and his affection to Islam and he's how he complimentary there. He'll speak on that day Ramadan but not on Easter. What role? Because what I'm trying to figure out is who's influencing who, who's elevating who, who has control over who. Some will say, you know, the Israel elites are controlling politics in America and through that they're getting things done elsewhere, right? You'll hear the criticism there. Some will sayQatar right now, you saw the number, $6.3 billion they put into US universities officially more than China. China's at like 5.5 billion. Cutter's number one at 6.3 billion. And then you know you'll see China by controlling manufacturing that we learned during co oh my god we are so reliant on China they controlled it in a complete different way we have the strongest military but who is who is really because I I have a very very hard time thinking Britain has the same kind of control and influence like they did before. I have a hard time buying that but I'm always open to being wrong. So, I just want to know with King Charles and influence, is cutter and them influencing him or is it the other way around? >> Oh, I think it I think it's the other way around. Um again, because if you go back and you look at some of this history, um Charles in particular, uh was a big supporter of the Saudis and I would say in their earlier pre-Trump incarnation where the Saudis were notoriously supporting uh Muslim extremism, especially the the whole Wahhabit side of things. You look at the history of Wahhabism and again this is another case where you go back to the 19th century or the 20th century. How did the Saudi family end up being the family that was ruling everything because that was not a that was not a done deal at the beginning of the at the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century straight British intelligence. I mean again that's documented by some of the books that I referenced earlier. But what what you have today and and and that's that's sort of where you see the the Charles question and yeah he's been a major supporter of you know setting up Islamic centers and again I'm not doing this from the st I'm not I'm not assessing this from the standpoint of Islam bad west good. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of what the British created in terms of political radical Islam to use as a tool to keep the world divided. So, you know, think for example the fall of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the at the beginning of the 1990s. All of a sudden, you know, we no longer had the communist boogeyman from the standpoint of the Soviet Union as the way of dividing the world. Samuel P. Huntington um who's who's you know an author who you know is got extensive ties to British institutions and British intelligence and so on. What does he do? He writes the clash of civilizations. All right. Now the dividing line in the world is the west versus Islam. Now what Samuel P. Huntington isn't going to tell you is everything he's t attacking in terms of Islam uh which is dangerous is this particularly created political radical Islam which the British Empire has its hands all over. So that that is the game that the British have played. Now Donald Trump I think has judoed a lot because unlike the way the British approached say the Middle East you know the way British intelligence you know played a major role in shaping the policies in Saudi Arabia Qatar and again in terms of the king I mean I think you have different levels in terms of competence of monarchs I think queen Elizabeth was extremely competent uh extremely intelligence uh I'm not sure how far down Charles falls on that rating system, but I don't think he's quite as quite at the level of his mother. But that doesn't mean, you know, he's he's he doesn't have his hands in a lot of things. Um, but that's sort of been the role the the relationship between the British and these particular movements and tendencies in the Middle East. But along comes Donald Trump. And remember what his first administration where he he really didn't have control of a lot which I think he discovered pretty quickly. Um but in his first administration what was his first foreign visit? It was to Saudi Arabia. That that was highly unusual. Uh and and and other Gulf states. But he basically laid down the law to the Saudis and he said, "You're going to stop your support for Islamic fundamentalism, for ISIS, for al-Qaeda, and so on." And they did. And he basically said, "We're going to have a different relationship. You know, you you don't have to now only be a pawn of these imperial forces, which you've largely been. Now you can start to develop as a sovereign nation, and we're going to work with you from that standpoint." And then that was the basis on which he could then move on to the Abraham Accords. I mean Saudi Arabia hasn't signed them yet. They were on the verge of before October 7th. Um you know but where he started with other Gulf states, other nations and say you're no longer pieces on the imperial chessboard. You're a sovereign nation. I'm going to treat you that way. Let's work out trade deals which mutually benefit us. not where you're just a gas station for, you know, British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell. We're going to work out nationto-nation economic deals which are going to help your nations and people started nations started to buy into that. Um and you know then he wasn't able to finish it with his first term came back with his second term and again you know all the reports are it was very Saudi Arabia was very close to joining the Abraham Accords which means you recognize Israel uh and then October 7th happened you know and everything we've seen play play out since then but look at the response of the Gulf nations to the Iran conflict they're not on Iran's side any longer whether they wanted to be or whether they felt they had no choice, you know, because of this crazy, you know, Muller IRGC run regime. Now they say, "All right, there's a different world we can have something to do with and essentially they're lining up with the United States against the insanity in Iran and creating a completely different environment." So, you know, uh again, when you look at what the president and his team have done from the standpoint of stopping the great game, you know, stopping this imperial manipulation which especially in the Middle East has given us perpetual wars and saying, "No, we're not going to do that any longer." And you know, it takes time. You have to take pieces off the chessboard to stop this. But I think that's what this administration is doing. And it's completely contrary to the policy of the British, which is why the British and the rest of the European Union didn't support what the president is doing in Iran. But don't you think UK don't you think Britain's gotten weaker and weaker and weaker? Don't you think when you see their influence, their wealth, you know, the the immigration that they've opened up, the crime, you know, they no longer uh uh are seen by the world the way they did maybe 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago, you know, like >> Yeah. Yeah. You can take that back uh a hundred years because that was the whole point of the pivot when the British recognized that they were no longer a match for the United States. You know, coming out of the Civil War, we weren't destroyed. People should look at the hand of the British in terms of the Confederacy, the reintroduction of the slave system and all of that, but we weren't destroyed after the Civil War. Um Lincoln despite his assassination [clears throat] in 1865 had set into motion the revival of the American system of political economy. By the time we had the 1876 centennial exhibition, we were the wonder of the world in terms of what we were doing with industry and so on. So what did they do? They started assassinating our presidents and then they started corrupting our institutions. So by the time of the turn of the 20th century, you have the British explicitly outlining people like Cecil Roads and the road scholarship or the British roundt explicitly saying we have to bring the United States back under our way of doing things. So that for most of the for all of almost all of the 20th century, not all of it, but for a large part of the 20th century, we were the dumb giant to their policy. So they don't have to be strong. They don't have to have a strong military. In fact, the um uh uh House of Lords just published an extremely important report where they review the US British relationship and um they also premiered it at Chattam House which is their you know primary think tank and a number of the lords were very very clear that we have benefited by this system that we set up but this system only exists because the United States enforced it. They say that. Yeah, that's that's the report uh or that's the Chattam House uh uh uh forum which was just last week. Uh but throughout they admit we we couldn't enforce this system without the United States basically doing it for us. So they don't have to be strong. They just needed us going along. And especially with President Trump's second term, they ain't getting it. We're not going along. >> So, >> so, you know, they Charles over for his charm offensive, which I don't think means much. >> What What do you think happened? Uh, because the first term, the president seemed like he was trying to do things, but it wasn't fully creating momentum. What do you think happened on the the the break that he had for four years when Biden came in? I wonder what adjustments you think he made to his approach because you know he was determined to get back in there because everybody that was asking him, "Are you going to run again?" He said, "Yes." He says, "I've never had a more exciting job than this one. I have to get back in there." He really wanted to get back to becoming a president again. It wasn't like he was contemplating not doing it. His words, what changed with him? What adjustments you you think he made? Did did he go from thinking who was the enemy in 2016 to realizing that's not really the enemy? This is the enemy because on the on the second term that he's had, his sequencing has been very interesting. He first gets Canal, Panama Canal. No, he first gets Venezuela. Then he goes and finds a way for Panama's president to turn against China to say CK cannot have this control of these two ports. And then he goes and attacks Iran. And then what changed? What do you think changed? Did he figure out something? You think he realized who the enemy was on a second term versus the first term? >> I I think he always had a a kind of general idea. Um I mean, you know, I'm not going to venture too far in terms of what he knows and what he doesn't know because I don't know what he knows and what he doesn't know. What what I see is the effects of what he does. And I think one of the things that happened in the first term is, you know, he was just hit across the face with how evil and how deep these institutional forces were. Um, you know, how much does he understand their origin? I have absolutely no idea. But I I look at the way that, as you say, this second term has been completely different. And I think, you know, once he recognized what COVID was, once he saw what happened on J6, he saw the steel, then then of course you get the assassination attempt in Butler. [clears throat] But I think, you know, he he got a much deeper understanding of how evil what it is he was up against. >> You know, how much again the history is there. I can't believe that somewhere in this in this, you know, in this administration, you don't have some very deep institutional knowledge of what you're up against because you don't make the changes that this administration is making by accident randomly. >> That's I agree. >> You know, you don't revive the American system randomly. And I I should reference the fact that Jameson Greer, the trade ambassador, when he went to Davos, he gave an amazing speech. His speech was entitled the American system that nobody knows about. And he literally went through Alexander Hamilton and how the American system had been the economic philosophy which guided this country in the 19th century and made it great. So there there are people who know this kind of hidden history which we're all supposed to forget about you know so we all just sit there and react to the shadows on the wall. So you know who has the deeper institutional historical knowledge I don't know but somehow this combination of people is really extraordinary you know especially when at JD Vance Scott Bessant I I'm you know I mean I've been following administration since 1976 I've never seen anything like this >> what do you mean by that >> in terms of competence coherence singularity of purpose One of the things you probably noticed there's no leaks. You know, this is not a government which is is, you know, where some faction is trying to, you know, get factitious advantage by leaking this that and the other thing. >> You had a little bit of that with Michael Waltz and you had a little bit of it with Joe Kent and yet some of those >> and guess how long they lasted. >> That's true. [laughter] Yes. >> Right. You know that this is this is a different animal. You know, this is on point. They have a mission. They certainly understand that the enemy is globalism. They say that. They said that. They went to Davos, they said it. Um, you know, Jameson Greer said the policy is the American system. So, you know, it's it's there. Um, you know, and then you have people like Scott Besson who know from the inside how this British financier system works. I mean, he did work with George Soros, you know, and he did crash the British pound. So, you know, he's got some skills. >> He's got some skills. You know, those skills are being used for us now for a change. >> That makes sense. And by the way, if there's a guy that knows how to mess with the currency very well, it's George Soros. So to be with him, I think he worked with him once for nine years, second time for five years as his chief investment officer, chief I don't know what it was, but chief he he was a heavyweight with Soros. So he has that experience. But to finish up with UK, when you see this chart here, this is from uh a paper that came from the Institute of Economic Affairs. When you look at this, it says what Americans perceive for UK to be in ranking of how wealthy UK is versus US uh for GDP per capita. And they said Americans believe UK would be right behind Jersey. Okay? meaning New York first, California second, Washington third, Massachusetts, Texas, Jersey, then UK, then you have everybody else, which actual ranking, [clears throat] UK would be 51st. You know, this whole thing with value and PBD podcast started with a phone, me and Mario. That's it. And it grew today to, you know, 15 million subscribers almost and 164 full-time employees. And that relationship or you watching us and supporting us wouldn't happen without you. But did you know 51% of you that watch the content are not subscribed to the channel? And it would mean the world to us if you could press that subscribe button and notification. Why? It allows us to grow, hire more, do bigger interviews, have a bigger team, and deliver a better product to you. So if you haven't yet, if you don't mind, press that subscribe button. It would mean the world to us. So h how much of their control that they have the the actual control and the actual wealth that they have is falling apart you know where America is just getting because you you said something you call you call him the dumb giant right the UK sees the America as the dumb giant is this dumb giant becoming so giant that you can no longer control it >> yeah well and it's also becoming way less dumb I mean that's that's the point you know when when you when you rediscover the American system and the power that that actually gives you to be economically sovereign, you know, look at the question of energy. You know, what is the pre one of the premier policies of of President Trump? Energy independence, which means you're no longer at the mercy of the straight of Hormuz. You're unfortunately we're still at the mercy of, you know, Brent Futures uh pricing, but I think that may recalibrate at some point in the not too far distant future. Um, but you you create independence in energy, so you're not relying on their markets or their strategic choke points or their Lloyds of London insurance cut off and so on. and and everything this administration has done, a lot of it quiet, you know, where where you look at something seemingly boring like the recent executive orders that the president promulgated on April 20th where he invoked the Defense Production Act for a whole gamut of uh aspects of our energy sector, not just energy production, but generation and transmission where we're incredibly v vulnerable. We don't build transformers in the United States. And if we had to order one from South Korea, it take two years. So let's say you had a bunch of transformer accidents, the lights go out for years. And the president said, "No, you know, this doesn't work." And in this order, he says the market is not is is not seeing to our national defense. So we have to step in. And you know there's all sorts of government financing institutions uh under the defense production act in the energy department. You have things like the export import bank. I think there's one called the international devel development finance corporation. But these these government corporations where this administration is saying hey Wall Street has not and and the magic of the free market has not seen to our basic needs. We are vulnerable in all these areas. You mentioned it, you know, during COVID, we discovered this. Well, you know, we we have to use the full array of government power to make sure that we're producing the basic things we need as a sovereign nation. One of those things is tariffs, but another of those things is how do you actually get credit into these sectors? If JP Morgan Chase would rather speculate than invest in some vital industrial area, how are you going to get the money in there? Well, you use these government financing agencies to make sure that the credit goes to people who want to produce here in the United States. Um JD Vance described it in terms of our strategic minerals uh uh uh weaknesses. He said, 'Look, companies would come in and want to invest in a processing facility here in the United States and they'd go through the ownerous regulatory policies and they'd put a lot of money into this and they're just about ready to get going and China would come in and undercut the price and wipe them out and they'd go bankrupt. So, we didn't have anything in the United States. He said, "That's crazy." He said, "So we're going to create new kinds of mechanisms where the producers are protected and they can produce." So what I mean by we're not dumb any longer. You know, dumb is blindly following the British free trade system. You know, blindly believing in some mystical invisible hand is going to make it all work out. No, the invisible hand is picking your pocket to feed the city of London. And Donald Trump isn't playing that game any longer. >> And that's the problem that the British have right now. >> And And how much of that did we see when we all of a sudden saw Lloyds of London pulling out? Was that a Was that a mistake on their end? >> I think it was a mistake on their end. I don't think they I don't think they expected this administration to do what it did, which is to step in and say, "Okay, you're not going to do it. We will." So, we essentially just broke a 300-year monopoly on shipping insurance by them pulling out because, of course, that's the first time they had ever cancelled insurance through all the other conflicts, you know, in the last 30, 40, 50 years. If you have a conflict in the region, they jack the prices up, you know, they that was their business model, you know, they they did quite well from that. They never cancelled. And the fact that they canled was their way of saying, "We do not agree with Donald Trump trying to end this game. So, we're going to call his bluff. We're going to cancel." And Trump counterbluffed and said, "Go ahead, make my day." >> How important was that? The average person didn't pay attention too much to that when that happened in the power structure. How important was that move? And what do you think behind closed doors? UK sitting there saying, "Wait a minute. What did he say? He said he's going to insure." Yes. Oh What do you think their reaction was to his move? >> No, I think you I think you hit the nail on the head. They they did not expect a president to do any of these kinds of things, which is why they've been so flatfooted in terms of all of their responses right now. And it's out in the open. I mean, suddenly the country which was our oldest and dearest ally, which I always found completely hysterical, people would literally say, "Britain is our oldest and dearest ally." And I said, "Excuse me, do you remember the American Revolution? Do you remember the War of 1812? They're not our oldest ally, right? But but people were sort of in this, you know, this fairy tale and, you know, the soap opera of the royal family and all the rest of that. Um, and I I think this this experience where they've in where in in essence the British are outing themselves by responding to a president who will openly not play their game. So I think >> who came from UK to the White House and gave an invitation to the president that's never had before that's we've never had before and his reaction was very complimentary. I don't know if you remember this or not. This was about a year ago maybe 14 months ago he got an invitation to do something that never in the history of America has that happened. Do you do you remember that? >> Yeah, sort of about as much as you do in terms of I don't remember the specifics. Yeah, but it seemed like it was a big deal to the president. It seemed like um the president was very honored by it and he was very, you know, taken by it. It's not too many times you see him going through it where you kind of see, oh, this is interesting. This has never happened before. Uh but at the same time, I I know he the the vibe he gives me is he doesn't want to be the man where anybody thinks they can control him. He'll deal with everybody. He'll do the team of rivals and a lot of people will say, "Well, he's owned by this. He's owned by that." They control him. They tell him what to do and he does it. Um I I don't know if I fully buy into the fact that he's controlled by anybody. I think he's his own mandate making a decisions. I mean, one of the things that he did that I want to get your thoughts on where they withdrew from 66 international, you know, organizations. 31 was UN entities, 35 was non UN, one of them being the, you know, world uh health organization, the other being the UN Human Rights Council. the Paris climate agreement. He did that in 2016, 2018, and then Biden went back and then he redid it again. How important is it for him when he comes out and says, "Look, we're withdrawn from all these organizations that you guys claim are important to us." You know, do do you think he does that to kind of make NATO or some of these guys realize, well, what happens if he all of a sudden withdraws? Cuz because the way they handled the war with Iran, they almost made it seem like they didn't care if he withdraws or not. the way they handle. We're like, "No, we're not going to let you do this." Spain, "No, we're not going to let you fly over. No, you can't use our military base." And okay, no problem. This is how far you want to go. Here's what I'm capable of doing as well. Do you think it'll ever get to a point that he withdraws from NATO? >> I think there's a good chance of it. Um, you know, I I think all of these European countries right now are definitely punching above their weight class. I mean, what what do they have to bring to the table? They they bought into the green nonsense. They've destroyed their ability to produce energy for their populations. Uh most of them don't have serious militaries. Uh you know they're dependent on you know they left themselves dependent on oil from the straight of Hormuse. So uh I I think he's called a lot of people's bluffs and I think he's ready to call NATO's bluffs. But see this is the way the president operates. You know I people should read the art of the deal. um it's much better to get your opponent to expose himself than for you to stand there and say this that and the other thing. So you know take the question of NATO or take the role of you know the British in terms of the bases and so on. You know Donald Trump could have you know said I don't like NATO I don't like these people and one of these days I'm going to break with them. Instead, you know, he pursues a policy which is the American policy which is in the what he believes is in the interest of the country and by doing so in a way that these institutions have not seen. I mean the the last person I think who seriously challenged them strategically was Eisenhower in the Suez crisis and before that it was Roosevelt. That's another story. Um but you know here he is seriously challenging them and he's forcing them to expose themselves. So he doesn't have to go out and give some kind of you know uh expert briefing to the American people about why NATO is a problem. NATO just proved that they're a problem. He doesn't have to go out and give some expert briefing about why Britain is not, you know, we should no longer have a special relationship with Britain. Britain just proved it. by refusing to step forward. Um, you know, so he's he's he's forcing these these institutions, you know, and I would call them adversarial institutions to increasingly show their true color. Whereas previously if a pre you know presidents, congress, other nations, political leaders, they all play by the rules of these games, you know, the post-war rules-based order is the favorite phrase of a lot of people like Mark Carney, uh, who's still trying to save it. Uh, you know, but if everybody plays by the rules of the game, nobody sees those rules. It's only when somebody says, "No, I'm not playing by the rules of that game." that the, you know, people trying to enforce the game end up exposing themselves. And I think that's what's happened, you know, especially with um NATO with Iran uh and you know, with and the response of Europe to all of this. >> Let's let's talk about the blockade because this kind of bleeds into that, right, with the whole NATO saying we're not going to we don't want to fight this war. This is your war. This is Israel's war. We want to have nothing to do with it. with with the way he set up the blockade and Iran being stuck, you know, to they can only sit on the oil for so long before they start, you know, being losing money. And we've seen the number four to $500 million a day. They're losing 12 to$15 billion a month. They're losing how sustainable that is. And the Abbos Archi who is the main negotiator right now on their end, he didn't want to meet with us. He didn't want to meet with Witkav, Krishna, and JD. So then he went to Islamabad. He had a meeting there. Then he went to Oman. Then he went to Russia to have a meeting, I believe, with Putin and his leaders. What do you what is your impression of what's going to happen with Iran and how that ends? >> Well, you know, I I don't want to get too far ahead of my skis in terms of, you know, predictions because there's a lot of different moving pieces and obviously you do not have a unified government in Iran. You know, you've got the IRGC, you've got the civilian government, you got a whole who know and who knows how much is going on in terms of Israeli intelligence. you know, how much is going on in terms of British intelligence and so on. So, it it's, you know, there's a lot of moving pieces in terms of this, but you know, I I think what characterizes Donald Trump in a very unique way, which is where you can hypothesize an outcome to this is he operates in the real world of physical economy. And you hit the nail on the head. uh the fact that you've got this blockaded, the fact that once the storage facilities in Iran are filled and you know I've heard I think Scott Bessant said May 2nd is the point that that hits which we're getting pretty close to maybe it was a little bit after that and then they have to stop pumping and once you stop pumping you lose the wells right it you know it just doesn't work any longer if you stop pumping you're going to have to start from scratch and drill all over again. The president does have them over a barrel. You know, he's not just operating in the world of moving diplomatic chess pieces around. He's dealing in a world of physical reality where I think he's got him by the throat. Um, and they're going to play it till the I think they're going to play it till the very last minute. And I think if the relatively sane people in Iran can make the decisions, and that's where I think you have a wild card yet. I don't know the answer to that. But if they can make the decisions to finally you know negotiate the fundamental questions in time they are just up against it. I mean their economy will if if if they lose those oil wells and you know that's going to set that will set them back to the dark ages much more in a certain sense than bombing bridges and you know electric energy plants which clearly the president doesn't want to do. he will if he has to, but clearly he didn't. He doesn't want to send the Iranian people back to the stone age, but he is not going to let this cancer exist any longer. Um, but I think this, you know, the way that they're doing this in terms of dealing in the world of physical reality as opposed to diplomatic machinations and money machinations and so on, this this gives the president and when he says, "I've got all the cards," that's what I think he's talking about. >> Yeah. It it'll be it'll be interesting. Now, who do you think could bail out Iran? Who could help him out? Who could give him a extender life of saying, "Hey, we'll be a customer of yours. Let's do a deal this way. Can Russia or China or anybody else help them out? >> Well, I think Trump wants to help them out. I mean, you know, from the standpoint of the people, the people of the nation, >> I'm not talking I'm talking about IRGC. I'm specifically saying IRGC. Who can help out the IRGC? >> Who can help out the IRGC? You know, I I I I don't really I I I don't really believe that either Russia or China is all that enamored of this regime. Um I mean there again I and when I'm talking about any nation, I I'm not also presuming that they're completely unified. You know, I think there's a lot more factions in China than there probably are in Russia at this point, at least in terms of their their actual influence. So, are there factions in China that would like to bail out the IRGC? Probably. Uh, is Xi Jinping going to let him? I don't know the answer to that, but if I had to guess, I'd say probably not. So, I I don't think they have too many places to go at this point because again, what has Donald Trump done with these other countries? What has he done with Russia? What has he done with China? He's created a different kind of relationship with them. If you read the national security strategy which came out in uh December or read the national defense strategy which came out in January these are very very interesting documents because they're written for the layman you know they're not written in bureaucraties and they're relatively short and they just establish a completely different parameter in the world where you you do not see either Russia especially you don't see Russia treated as some kind of immutable enemy. And you see China treated as a competitor who could cause problems in Asia, but we're going to be powerful enough that it won't. So, and and believe me, the Chinese and the Russians have read those documents. You compare the US national security strategy document to the new British defense document, you know, their hair is on fire in terms of Russia, uh, perpetual enemy, World War II around the corner, and so on and so forth. China they have a a more complicated approach to which is how can we somehow still maneuver China in our world and use it against the United States. But the Russians and Chinese can read these documents and I think they at least the people calling the shots right now certainly in Russia and you know and with Xi Jinping in China they see the United States is something very different than they've had to deal with for decades and decades. And you know in that world do they still need to play assets like the IRGC to maintain their position on the chessboard and so on? I tend to think not really. So then when it comes on to China, I guess maybe the other thing for us to be thinking about with China is we saw the reports that came in. I think it's four or five consecutive years of a declining population. Four years I believe it's declining population. And it looks like they're going to have their fifth year here in 2026 and they're at 1.01 their birth rate and you know the replacement number is 2.1 so they're at 1.01 and and what what are things that China is going through that they've been very good at hiding that they're internally having to overcome because from the outside it's like China's going to take over, China's going to be the powerful, China's going to be this, China's going to be that. I don't know where you subscribe to that mindset as well. And if not, what challenges are they're having that the world is not seeing because they're keeping it private? >> Well, I think you hit the nail on the head. I mean, you know, they're not replacing their population and they've got a very stratified society, you know, and you you have a whole lower level of society which is not really participating in, you know, the kind of of, you know, development and economic growth that you're seeing in terms of the way they play they they look, they played the free trade system, right? um you know and and as President Trump has said I don't blame them you know but honestly they didn't set up the free trade system they just played it but they created a very stratified society um you know the social credit system you know is clearly I mean I think that's one of the big aspects of it the social credit system has to be a damper in terms of the ability of your society to actually develop um because you're basically exerting a certain level of mind policing and once you have mind policing people are not going to think independently. They're not going to think creatively. So that the the durable basis for a future society which is population replacement um and you know a a population a generalized population which can create and produce and participate. I think they've left themselves incredibly vulnerable because they just sort of plugged into this world free trade system and you know milked it for what it was in the context of the way they were running their society. Um you know it's not unlike the problem that the Soviet Union faced um back in the you know before the the end of the Soviet Union. uh you know they had they had a very highly skilled um sector which built and supported their military but it was totally closed off from the rest of society and the rest of their civilian economy was just a complete disaster and it was kind of that that tension that that collapse of the civilian economy um because the population again was in this kind of you know [clears throat] mind policing world where you're not allowed to think independently and if you if you do you're going to be punished ultimately that that's what's going to kill any society. Now you know once with the fall of the Soviet Union and with Putin's several presidencies but especially this latest round they put enormous impact on education science and technology you know cultural expansion and so on for the whole population and that's what's key. You can't have a stratified society and be successful. That that's the ultimate failure of empires or any system which is based on that kind of idea that we have the elites and then we have the peons. Um >> it's funny I had a guy on I had a guy on a podcast a couple weeks ago Xiang and uh he's made some interesting claims that that they in July of 2024 he says President Trump's going to win. He's going to go to war with Iran and he's going to lose. and he made those comments, those videos went viral. I don't know if he saw that or not. And we had them on, we had a good conversation together. But when I asked him about China, he said, "In China, there are certain things you just can't talk about. You know, you just have to accept." You're like, "No, we don't even debate it. We don't have, you know, you can't push back on the following ideas that they have. If you do, they'll come knocking on your door." And it's just an accepted thing that they have. So you're right because what that prevents man from doing if I can't question then I become I lose the creativity of questioning and then what happens? Nope. Just follow the rules. Mom, what do I do with this? Nothing. Just listen to what the government says and move on. But I don't agree with them. Honey, be quiet. They know what they're talking about. F it. It's it's not sustainable for creative minds. creative minds will get in trouble like Jackm got in trouble and other people got in trouble but long term I I don't know if we're really going to see the consequence of what China is doing today for 50 years I don't know if I'm going to be around to see what happens to China because the case study you need not just a decade a year definitely a lie a decade is maybe a little bit but you kind of need a few decades to see what's going to happen to those guys you know by 2076 who are going to be the players you know who's going to be a big empire empire today that's going to fall. We don't know, you know, what things are going to happen. But what key factors you think will determine which empires are still in power 50 years from now, not not 10 years from now? >> Well, that, you know, the question is, will there be any empires? And that's up to us here in the United States. you know, if if the Trump revolution succeeds and continues, you know, which means one of his successors, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, uh, you know, continues this and we establish these principles which are inconst the national security strategy, the national defense strategy and everything what all the uh Trump people said when they went to Davos. We want a world of sovereign nations. If the United States is able to play that role, which is what the British has always have been afraid of since certainly the time of Abraham Lincoln, but absolutely since the time of McKinley, you know, if the United States maintains itself as a sovereign, independent, prosperous nation, if other nations are allowed to replicate that, and you have, as the president has said so many times, a world of sovereign nations, then there won't be any empire. s and I think China will adapt to that. Look, there's an older tradition in China. You know, I mentioned the countries that were uh advocates of the American system. Shank Kaishek was an open advocate of the American system. He wrote about the American system of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Kerry and others. That tradition is still there somewhere in China. Um you know, I mentioned Count Sergey Vitta in Russia. So you know you had the Soviet Union, you had communist China. Um Soviet Union is gone. Russia is going back much more to its tradition of as you know as a sovereign nation based on Christian principles. You know Chinese is China isn't necessarily Christian but there's a lot in Confucian principles which cherish [clears throat] the kinds of things you're talking about in terms of creativity. So what I would envision, and again it's entirely up to what happens here in the United States, that if the Trump revolution sustains itself and continues, in 50 years there won't be any empires. And in fact, we'll have sovereign nations and who knows, we may have sovereign >> colonies on the moon and Mars. >> Well, I mean, listen, that that is very ideal if you believe that. And so it'd be good to see that happen. By the way, uh, walk me through the influence that Lyndon Lar Ro has had on you. Very interesting character. No matter how much I read about him, this guy's a very unique character. You know, he went from, you know, when I see him politically, he was a socialist worker for the Troskist in the 40s and 50s, far-left, you know, and we we know what happened to Troskis. They got kicked out of Russia. They were so communist they got kicked out that I think the guy ended up getting killed or died in Mexico. I don't know what it was but something like that. >> Yeah, he was assassinated and then he ends up joining the labor committees uh in 19 the national caucus of labor committees in ' 69 founded in US labor party in 73 and then shifted to farright politics in the mid70s. He got himself a little bit of in trouble with male fraud and tax evasion the $30 million whatever it was that he ended up having to do 15 years. I think he only did five years. Married a girl 27 years younger than him. He ran for president many times. Interesting guy. Why why did he inspire you? What what you know what what about him interests you? >> What interests me is I I ran into his movement uh a couple of years after the Kenned Bobby Kennedy assassination. Uh which had obviously affected me pretty dramatically and was sort of spiraling into hopelessness in terms of what are we going to do to turn this country back around again? Um, and I I ran into somebody espousing his ideas and it the the one thing with him which has never changed and you know these descriptions of him are kind of again like the shadows on the wall where you take a noun or an adjective and you act like that's what he was. He he was he was a universal genius. Um and his passion was always this divergence between the development of the physical economy based on the creativity of the human mind versus all these other kind of artificial systems based on money or systems analysis or whatever. Um and what attracted me to him is that he was an intellectual who who forced you to constantly hypothesize and rethink the way you thought. And we did rethink our the the organization which I joined which he founded rethought everything when we discovered the American system. And you know it it nothing had changed from the standpoint of our fundamentals. But we were trying to find what what what is what is the policies what are the institutions what is the philosophy that exists in the world that will do what we wanted to do. And when when literally we had to rediscover the American system and it was actually right around the time of the American bicesentennial in 1976 that then everything kind of locked in and we could take the same principles that we had always espoused but we're trying to figure out well socialism work does this work does that what what works we said oh here it is the American system has always worked so you know that the the you know the media will then say oh he went from left to right he didn't change what he his his principles and his policies always stayed the same and um you know his and his influence was is is not always understood but he played a vital role in Ronald Reagan's strategic defense initiative. Um he met Reagan on the campaign trail in 1980. They talked about this and Larouche was brought in to the Reagan administration for intensive discussions on what Reagan ultimately announced as the strategic defense initiative. Um I was there in Washington and at that point this same imperial elite which went after Donald Trump said okay lar is getting too big for his britches. Uh among the people who prosecuted Lynon LaRouche were Robert Mueller. So you know it's a small world. >> Wow. Uh what year we got to >> uh 87 I think >> yeah I think the Mueller indictment was either 86 or 87 maybe it was a little bit it became a blur because there were it was just like Trump there were so many indictments at the state and the federal level. Now, one thing I have to say which I would want to say anyway, uh, following Larouche's passing, uh, his widow, Helga Zeppel took the organization in a direction which we completely disagreed with. Um, and so those of us who formed Prometheian action, split off, and we have nothing to do with her, which we need to say legally, but as I say, I would want to do anyway. >> Very. Yeah, because when I when I see some of this stuff, look, people like this are very interesting to study because you want to know why they say what they say. some of the claims he made. He said Queen Elizabeth II runs the international narcotics trade. Okay. He claimed Hitler's rise was orchestrated by Rothschild's Warbergs and Oppenheimer's which we know Warbergs were very powerful uh uh on what they did. They were even involved with Jackal Island the meeting at Jackekal Island of beginning of building Federal Reserve. Um then he said British rules Israel as a zombie nation. Okay. British intelligence and a queen circle controlled the US economy. Queen Elizabeth II framed Bill Clinton. British intelligence orchestrated the Russia gate. The CIA, KGB, and British intelligence conspired to assassinate Lyndon Lar Ro. The IMF deliberately created and spread AIDS. The CIA and KGB brainwashed and kidnapped Lar Ro aids into assassins. I mean, when you go and I can go on and on and on. this guy had some very unique takes uh uh you know uh on on what happened. So did you ever spend time with him one-on-one? Were you around him? Were you >> and and what was he these are things he literally believed in on what happened? >> Well, those those are kind of cartoonish type characterizations of some of the things. But you know, take for example the question of uh the international drug trade. Um, you know, the the the key element, and this is something that Bessant and the Trump administration are taking on. The key element of the international narcotics trade, you know, is not the cigar boats with the drugs on them. It's who laers the drug money. And there, all you have to do is go back to the 1960s when the British, the city of London in particular, set up the entire offshore banking operation in the Cayman Islands, is of man, aisle of white and so on, where you have these black boxes of complete and total secrecy in terms of moving money. This is where the financial flows which finance international drug trafficking come from. Um, you know, you also have very premier institutions like Hong Kong, Shanghai. Uh, in the 1970s, we wrote a book [clears throat] entitled Dope Incorporated. Um, and some of the research we used came from the I think she was the bank commissioner of New York who had filed a brief against Hong Kong Shanghai being able to charter itself in New York because of their role in international drug money laundering. So all we did is we just started to put all the pieces together. Now, you know, this was then caricatured. I think there was even a Saturday Night Live skit, you know, which shows somebody playing the Queen of England with nickel bags, you know, handing them off to Henry Kissinger, who by the way at one point gave a speech at Cadam House where he said, "When I was Secretary of State, I kept the British Foreign Office more closely informed than I did the State Department." So, you know, confessions essentially. Um but you know but but when you look at the institutions in terms of drug money laundering in fact um it was about 10 years ago I think it was the fellow who was the drug anti-drug zar for Russia I think his name was Costa or Ka gave a speech at the United Nations where he pretty much said everything we had said in dope inc you know that it's these big London-based banks that finance international drug trafficking So, you know, again, the the the media will put a kind of cartoon version of this, but you know, or you look at Hitler, look at the role of his finance minister, Hilmar Shockt, uh, who came straight out of London Wall Street Networks who was deployed back to Germany to basically set up a financial structure in Germany to keep paying the war reparations debt. um and then later to uh have the money to militarize Germany and so on. He he came straight out of these Anglo-American financial circles. Um, so you know when when when you bother to look at the you know you you just get below the the surface level of history which is what you get if you look at Wikipedia usually um you know and and again just dive a little bit more deeply you'll you'll find that that all of the claims which LaRouche made could be thoroughly thoroughly historically proven you know not in a two sentence you know simple-minded version. But if you actually look at the historical processes behind this um and there up until recently, there's really been very little serious history that people have done. It's all been this, you know, this really simple-minded soap opera cartoon version of history. Um, one historian who I think has done extremely important work and I always take the opportunity to highlight uh is a book by Richard Poe uh entitled How the British Created Communism and Blamed It on the Jews. Now that is an amazing book. >> How the British created communism and blamed it on the >> Jews and blamed it on the Jews. >> How did they do it? What does he say? What he he he shows is that communism was created in London. I mean actually Karl Marx was on the payroll of the um of uh yeah there's the book uh was was >> wow >> through uh Urkheart was basically on the payroll of the British East India Company. You know they wanted to create an ideology which they could use largely against Russia. I mean what he documents in the book is that so much of British policy with well British policy was largely aimed in the 19th and the early 20th century against their great rival on the continent which was Russia and whatever they could do to weaken Russia and then of course they were worried about what was going on with the United States. Um, but what he documents is how these these movements were completely synthetically created and they were all created for geopolitical purposes and that the claim that it was the Jews was also straight from British intelligence. This is a short book. Uh, actually like I don't know 20% of it is the footnotes. That's how well documented it is. It's an easy read. He's an excellent writer. Um, and I I think people will just find their entire world view begin to shift when you work through something like this. >> Is he So, Richard Poe is alive. So, he's a because it just came out two years ago. >> Yeah. >> Rob, can you go on Richard Po's link just to see what is his background? >> Uh, I don't quite remember. He's might be an investigative journalist. >> New York Times bestselling author and award-winning journals. He has written bestselling books on many subject fiction. I'm talking about Shadow of Fire. Interesting. All right. Interesting. >> Yeah. >> No, he's he's just a really competent historian and there have been so few of those out there who actually just do the work. Do the work, you know, as opposed to taking a bunch of secondary sources and pasting them together. I mean, that's the other thing I will say in terms of my time with Lyndon Larouche, which is it was all primary sources. You know, you don't read somebody's description of what something was happening. you went back, read the primary sources, and I would say that the the you know, the the same thing is true of the Trump administration today. Stop getting your ideas about what Donald Trump is doing from social media, unless you're reading Trump himself. Go to the White House website. Read the executive orders. Read the findings. One of my favorite pastimes is watching a cabinet meeting. These cabinet meetings are amazing because you actually see a team and they're not rivals. A team of people, you know, who are working with each other in sync to carry out an actual revolutionary policy. It's actually all there. [clears throat] >> You just have to look for it as opposed to take, you know, as opposed to taking Fox News's or the Washington Post's version of, you know, what is going on. just go to the primary sources yourself and start thinking. >> Yeah. Um I mean, if you don't do that, there's uh we have congressmen and congresswoman who think there's been 11 wars. I don't know if you saw that yesterday with Ilhan Omar talking about World War 11. >> Um and uh because she thought that the the you know when they put the two, she thought it meant 11. And oh yeah, she she was she was reading off a paper and she said >> World War 11 and she was destroyed for it. I'm sure it was an innocent mistake, but she was destroyed over it. But that's a good point. By the way, last thing with Lar Roach, who who would be a modern-day Lyndon Lar Ro today? Do we have one? Because he ran for president, I think, six, seven, or eight times. I don't know what the number is. He kept running and the highest he ever got was 2% >> as a Democrat [clears throat] in the mid 80s on 84, something like that. >> Right. Right. I mean, we were probably starting to get some traction when all the attacks began against us, but you know, I don't know if Donald Trump will appreciate this or not, but you know, I I say that before there was Trump, there was Larouche. And what happened with Donald Trump is he picked up the same fight uh probably not with the same historical or philosophical depth because Larouche was really a genius um in terms of economics in terms of science in terms of philosophy he was just conversant in everything um I mean if you listen to one of his discussions you know he's talking about you know philosophical fights which nobody has heard about but which nonetheless were really foundational to the development of civilization. Um, does Trump Trump have that kind of depth? I don't know. Again, um, but it's it's but it's essentially the same instinct. And you know, with Trump, what did you have with Trump? You have somebody who had the money to do this. >> Yeah. >> You know, could Trump have become president in 2016 if he weren't a billionaire? No. uh and also a a new social media platform which didn't exist >> when LaRouche was running. I mean our our you know we got material out by leaflets you know by pamphlets um and so on you know which which had a certain effect and at at at certain local levels before we came under the kind of attack again that you've seen with Trump and all the attacks against him. We were beginning to win primary elections in you know local and state races and so on. We were beginning to build up a certain kind of traction, but you know, they hit us with a ton of bricks and figured they would wipe us out. They didn't wipe us out. You know, they basically severely damaged us, but basically we could hang on as an institution to keep these ideas alive. And Larouche did long live long enough to see Trump get elected. Um, and he saw that as as an extension of the kind of fight that he had fought. Um and uh because the key is if if you don't have a leader with that kind of courage to stand up and fight, you're never going to get to these deeper levels. It's only because Trump has stood his ground and fought. Um and it's forced the enemy much more into the open than they ever have been. not one assassination attempt but three very visible ones and a few others that you know didn't quite get to the level of of the three that we're talking about. Um so uh but I I think Larouche's approach was always we we need many Donald Trump's or Lyndon LaRouche's that is you need people who will think who will challenge and who have then have the courage to act on their convictions and that gets back to what we've talked about in terms of creativity and independence. That's the core of a republic. you know, if you don't have people who have the courage of their convictions and and you know, that's one of the horrible things about DEI and you know, I mean, DEI and you know, all this social, you know, enforcement is really no different than social credit in Britain. That that will your society. Your your average healthy society should have a whole bunch of people who are like Donald Trump. They may not express themselves in the same way as Donald Trump, but you know, people who have the courage of their convictions and who think um that that that's where I that that's when a republic is secure. >> Did Lar Ro and the president ever meet? Was there ever a documented meeting between the two? >> No, I don't believe so. I don't believe so. >> Yeah. Because you know the the president will listen to anybody and everybody and he always like what is the ideas he has? What is she saying? you know, he he's not uh he's not one that wouldn't listen to anybody. I mean, he's met with some of the most controversial people that will come to Mara Lago and he's like, "Yeah, I'll sit down and talk to you. What do you have to say?" And then he'll get heat for it afterwards like, "Oh, okay. Yeah, I just had a conversation with a guy. I just had breakfast with a guy. I just had a meeting with a guy." So, >> um I do like that about him a lot. Uh last thing I'll ask you before we wrap up. What is what is one storyline that influencers, podcasters, content creators are that's very popular that does very very well that is extreme by far not accurate and has brain rotted a lot of people. What do you notice that you look at and say what are you saying? That's a lazy position. And we all fall for a lot of different things at times. And you go do research, you're like, "Well, what was that all about? Why did I believe that for a year or two years or three years?" And and you try to snap out of it by taking a cold shower and reading books and hearing different arguments. But what's one or two ideas that you see spreading like that's a full-on lie and it's propaganda. Well, uh, on the one hand, probably the one which is most widespread at this point is the whole question of the Epstein files, you know, and and when you get to the when you get to the far left, you know, you have these obscenities of, you know, Trump is a rapist and a pedophile and he eats children, uh, which is part of what created the environment around this latest assassination attempt clearly. But there's also part of the MAGA movement which is also, you know, heavily invested in this. And you know when you look at how much look at who the Epstein files has actually brought down brought down Peter Mandelson. They brought down Prince Andrew, no longer Prince Andrew and so on, you know. But this this fixation that Donald Trump is somehow the beating heart of the Epstein files is extremely corrosive. Um because people who are just living in that world have have literally stopped thinking. Um and that that spans both the left and the right obviously. Um, you know, the question of Epstein is his intelligence ties. You know, you look at Mandlesson, why what was he feeding Epstein? Top financial information uh during the 2008 crisis and so on. So, people who are completely fixated on the island are ignoring the fact that this is a much larger intelligence operation. And guess what? It it actually is being dismantled. So, you know what? I I think this question of I'm not going to support Donald Trump until I see, you know, people in handcuffs and the Epstein files and so on, they're really not paying attention to what the president is actually doing to bring down the structure that created Epstein. You know, sometimes they say, look, there were evil things of that same kind of quality in the Roman Empire. You know, what what what what was the what was the solution for society? you know, put everybody whoever did that in Rome in handcuffs or bring down the Roman Empire. >> And that's what I think the president is trying to do. And the other the other big one, of course, is the Israel question, which Tucker and Candice and, you know, the rest of these things have gotten onto. You know, that's a longer question, but it's not it's it's completely parallel to the British role in creating the Muslim Brotherhood. They created radical Zionism. um you know which is not which is not Judaism just like political Islam is not Islam uh and that's a a larger longer story but you know that that has clearly I mean I see it in the I those are the two things I get in the comments in my videos um you know from people who disagree the most Israel and Epstein um and if you actually look more seriously at what is behind both of those it takes you back to the same place that we're talking about which is this British imperial system, a system which the president is taking down. >> Got it. Yeah. Well, Susan, great having you on. Uh, where can people find you? Is it the Prometheianaction site? >> Yeah, Prometheianaction.com. That's it. Uh, that's my latest video up there. Um, and, uh, we have a YouTube channel which you can link to through there and a lot of other material including background material. um on the Prometheian action website including if you want to go back to the website we have an ebook on there under the toolkit uh which is called uh police dossier it is the British who murder our presidents >> very useful thing for people to read right now because it goes through the history of Lincoln McKinley Kennedy and the attempts on Trump so >> let's put that below Rob both links Susan thank you for making the time to come on and I uh look forward to our next conversation as more things will happen under Trump. I have a feeling there's going to be many more things happening that we'll probably invite you back to have a conversation with. In the meantime, keep creating uh creating great content. You got a lot of people thinking and looking for things they weren't looking for before. Uh and by the way, that video that's on there from 17 years ago, did you really have this YouTube channel 17 years ago? >> We did. It was when we were still Larouche Pac. Oh, so that so this YouTube channel used to be called LaRouche Pack, >> right? So some of the history stuff that's actually that 1932 is a great history. >> It really is. It really is. I was looking at them like it's an hour and 40 minutes, but it was from 17 years ago. >> Yes. >> And yes, >> that's Oh, okay. Very cool. Well, thank you Susan. All the best to you. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you for having me. >> Anytime. You know, this whole thing with VIN and PBD podcast started with a phone me and Mario. That's it. And it grew today to, you know, 15 million subscribers almost and 164 full-time employees. And that relationship or you watching us and supporting us wouldn't happen without you. But did you know 51% of you that watch the content are not subscribed to the channel? And it would mean the world to us if you could press that subscribe button and notification. Why? It allows us to grow, hire more, do bigger interviews, have a bigger team, and deliver a better product to you. So if you haven't yet, if you don't mind, press that subscribe button. It would mean the world to us. Thank you so much.