December 8, 2025 • 59 mins
Marty sits down with Susan Kokinda to discuss the City of London's centuries-long financial control over global affairs, its connection to modern narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, and how the Trump administration is working to reassert American economic sovereignty.
Susan on Twitter: https://x.com/sjkokinda
Promethean Action: https://www.prometheanaction.com/
STACK SATS hat: https://tftcmerch.io/
Our newsletter: https://www.tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/
TFTC Elite (Ad-free & Discord): https://www.tftc.io/#/portal/signup/
Discord: https://discord.gg/VJ2dABShBz
Opportunity Cost Extension: https://www.opportunitycost.app/
Shoutout to our sponsors:
Bitkey
Unchained
Obscura
SLNT
CrowdHealth
https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/tftc
Salt of the Earth:
Join the TFTC Movement:
Main YT Channel
https://www.youtube.com/c/TFTC21/videos
Clips YT Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUQcW3jxfQfEUS8kqR5pJtQ
Website
Newsletter
https://www.instagram.com/tftc.io/
Nostr
Follow Marty Bent:
Nostr
Newsletter
Podcast
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Susan Kukindo, welcome to the show.
(00:02):
Thanks for having me. Looking forward to it.
Like I was saying right before we hit record, I very much am looking forward to this.
As I was explaining, we've had a recurring guest on, Tom Luongo, who's very passionate about the City of London and the fact that most people have not diagnosed the City of London as the problem of geopolitics today, of global control.
(00:25):
You've been on this subject for quite a while and have been putting out incredible content about how it pertains to what's happening in the world today.
But first, I think just to give a high level synopsis of the City of London thesis, their control over the global economy and political affairs for the last 300 years.
(00:46):
And then we can pull it forward to today and what's happening.
Sure. I mean, I think the fastest way for people to think about this is just think about what we fought the American Revolution against. We fought it against a British empire. Now, what was that British empire?
Well, the British Empire was very much dominated by two institutions, the Bank of England and the British East India Company, both of which represented kind of like the modern codification of imperialism, where you have private financial interests who actually have more power than the nominal governments.
(01:25):
Now, it gets a little different when you have monarchies, but essentially, you know, when you're looking up the British Empire, you look at the monarchy and all of the institutions that are connected to that.
You know, I always remind people, for those of us who, you know, remember the old James Bond series, on Her Majesty's Secret Service, on Her Majesty's Secret Service, who runs MI6?
(01:51):
It's not the government.
It's not the parliament.
But you have this complex of things, which includes the Bank of England, the British
Intelligence Services.
But then the city of London itself is this unique incorporated entity of I don't remember
how many square miles, which has its own independent existence.
(02:11):
And it is where the major financial flows of the world go through.
So when you look at that complex, this is what we actually fought the American Revolution against, because their intention is we're going to keep everybody under our control, your financial flows, and by the way, through perpetual wars, and get them pitted against each other.
(02:35):
And they have no place else to go for finances other than these private central banks or the institutions that are tied to the city of London.
And then the upstart Americans came along and said, no, we don't like that. We want to be sovereign. We want to be sovereign politically. We want to be sovereign economically. And one of the most important things that we did, which was really quite as much, we made an economic revolution as much as we did a political revolution.
(03:03):
Revolution, we created a national bank where the nation was not subservient to private bankers,
but the national bank was subservient to the interests of the nation. And of course,
that went by the way in various iterations. And then we ended up with our own central bank
in 1913. So when you think city of London, think about this entire imperial complex,
(03:29):
which is no different, again, than what we fought the American Revolution against.
And is it safe to assume that today in 2025, we are fighting yet another revolution? It's not only
us this time around, but it's more behind the scenes than it was in 1776.
(03:49):
Yeah. You know, most people in the MAGA movement and more broadly think of it from the standpoint
of globalists and globalization. Well, there's nothing wrong with that. That's a good generic
title for it. But the brand name is go back to the British Empire and then trace the institutions
that they created that still exist to this day in terms of foreign policy, in terms of central
(04:12):
banking institutions, in terms of intelligence agencies. And you'll see what it is we and
Donald Trump are essentially fighting against. Well, let's dive into current events. There's
a lot of activity off the coast of Venezuela, as we were discussing before we hit record.
There is a new sort of economic policy that was released earlier today, really focusing on
(04:39):
the Western hemisphere. If you look at the mainstream media, a lot of the pundits are
pining about extrajudicial bombing of narco terrorists and that not being okay war has not
been officially waged through Congress. And so this is a bad thing. How does this all pertain to
(05:00):
this intercabal squabble, if you will, between the West, the United States, the Trump administration
would like the US to be sovereign economically and geopolitically and the city of London?
Well, this actually gets to the core of a very important aspect of this, because what you're dealing with, there's one more iteration, shall we say, of the city of London, and that's international drug trafficking.
(05:28):
You know, historically, people are familiar with Britain's opium wars against China, which were used politically to basically, you know, make China subservient to them.
But also financially, because there are huge dark money flows tied to the international drug trade in the trillions and trillions of dollars.
(05:50):
And what you've seen emerging in South and Central America with Venezuela as a key nodal point in all of this is one of these nodal points for what we call dope incorporated.
Um, the, the, especially the, the, one of, one of the key transit points for a lot of
(06:11):
this dirty money going back to the seventies and eighties and so on has been Britain's
offshore Caribbean islands, you know, totally deregulated, no transparency.
You know, you can drive a gorilla of dirty money through these things and nobody will
ever know it.
So you've had this huge underbelly of the global financier elite, in particular, the British side of it. And what you find in countries like Venezuela and other countries, which to one degree or another, you know, are in contention with literally a narco-terrorist government.
(06:50):
I mean, if you think about this, if you think about the narco-terrorists, not a bunch of guys from South America who are making money, you know, shipping fentanyl and cocaine into the United States, but as part of this global financier elite, you know, this just happens to be their Latin or Central American division of it, you're literally dealing with what is the equivalent of an entire foreign entity down there.
(07:18):
You know, I've often said, you know, people say, well, we've had failed wars on drugs.
No, we haven't.
We've never fought one because the real war on drugs has got to be against these financier
interests.
But of course, they don't function without the actual drugs, flow of drugs as well.
And Wall Street and London have never wanted a war on drugs, which is why we've never had
(07:42):
a serious one.
And that is what I think Trump is targeting.
And this is a war.
And it's a war in which there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of American casualties.
So he has declared this to be a national emergency.
He's declared these narco-terrorist gangs to be just that.
And, of course, you have, you know, the entire anti-Trump opposition, which, you know, never seemed to notice how many innocent civilians Barack Obama droned when he was president of the United States.
(08:14):
including infamous situations where they'd go in and they'd drone a wedding, and then they'd go
back in and they'd drone the first responders. Hundreds and hundreds of civilians and women and
children were killed by Barack Obama in much less clear circumstances than what we're dealing with
right now, which is a foreign-financed and directed assault against the very lives of the American
(08:42):
people. So this really does go to the heart as much as anything of the city of London.
Well, to that point, how much influence has the city of London had on domestic politics here
in the United States as it pertains to Venezuela? There's been a, I wouldn't even consider them
headlines. There's been a lot of theories about the voting technology and the servers
(09:06):
that were sort of storing the votes being located in Venezuela.
Obviously, the deep state as a concept, particularly the CIA and FBI,
colluding with foreign interests to get certain things done has been a long-running theory.
How much of this, from your perspective, is actually happening, and how is it happening?
(09:26):
I'm not ready to say from my own investigations and personal experience
how much of that is actually run through foreign countries. I mean, I'm politically active here in
Michigan. After the 2020 election, I got very much involved in election integrity efforts here
in Michigan because it was pretty obvious what happened here at the infamous TCF Center. And
(09:53):
the work that I've done over the years in terms of this, the vote stealing is primarily the
absentee ballots. It's not gremlins in the machines and international information packets
coming from Serbia or Venezuela. Is there something there? There could be. I don't think
it's the most fundamental part. I think the most important thing for people to think about is the
(10:17):
way that this imperial system, this British imperial system, has infected most of our
institutions since the beginning of the 20th century. So it's not like you have to draw a
direct connecto between this event and here's the address in London, but just look at how our entire
foreign policy establishment for over 100 years has been inculcated in British imperial thinking.
(10:44):
You know, the British recognized that the United States was becoming a powerful force coming out of
the Civil War and going into the turn of the 20th century. They took care of some of our power by
assassinating our best presidents like Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley. But at that point,
they recognized even with that, we were becoming an industrial power. Other nations around the
(11:08):
world, nations like Russia, Germany, Japan, China, and many others were modeling themselves
on the American system and not the British system. And the British said, well, we're going to have to
figure out how to capture the United States intellectually. And you see the subversion of
our education institutions. You see obvious institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations,
(11:29):
which was founded in 1922 as a direct outgrowth of the British Roundtable. And the British
Roundtable was very clear, along with the Cecil Rhodes' will, we have to bring the United States
back into the imperial fold. We're going to figure out how to do that. So they started setting up
institution after institution in the United States to just get us to do their bidding
(11:52):
because they had corrupted the way we thought. And Donald Trump came along in 2016 and began
to disrupt that. And he came back in 2024 and he's really disrupting that.
Yeah. As it pertains to the Council of Foreign Relations, I think when USAID got decimated
in the beginning of this administration.
(12:12):
It was astonishing.
I think the sort of meeting Zoom recordings
leaked a couple of months ago,
but it was kind of appalling,
may not be the right word,
but it was very, it was astonishing
how emboldened they were,
basically saying we can,
despite what's happening to USAID,
(12:34):
we can act sort of above that.
We are coordinating to make sure
that this isn't really a big disruption to what we're doing here.
Yeah. I mean, I think it has disrupted a lot of what they're doing. And if you
go back to the Venezuela situation, if you actually disrupt the global drug trade,
you are going to be disrupting even more of the financial flows that this apparatus depends on.
(13:00):
So Trump is a gigantic disruptor at this point, and they are obviously not amused.
through. I mean, shifting before we come back to the national security strategy that was just
released, I mean, shifting to Europe to looking at what's happening there in terms of digital ID,
the increase in censorship it seems apparent if we running down this thesis and using this as the core framework from which we view the world it seems that the city of London has very tight control over Europe the continent of Europe And I look as a Westerner as a United States citizen
(13:37):
at what's happening in Germany, UK, Ireland,
and completely dumbfounded by what's happening,
particularly with censorship laws in this push.
Now we have the UK trying to sue X for speech that that people are putting on this American company's platform.
What is the state of Europe and can they get out of this?
(13:59):
Europe gave up its sovereignty with the EU.
I mean, that was a grand experiment, which the globalists succeeded in imposing on these countries.
So you, I mean, when you're looking at the EU, you're basically looking at just a bunch
of political and economic colonies, for that matter, with the exception of a few countries.
(14:22):
I mean, obviously, as we know, there are a few countries in Europe, like Hungary and
Slovakia and others who are, you know, kicking back and have more of a national or sovereign
kind of approach.
But, you know, and sometimes it gets, people get a little confused.
well, the British got out of Brexit. So, you know, aren't they different? Not really. You know,
(14:46):
they're perfectly capable of manipulating institutions, whether they're directly in
them or not in them. And obviously, as you pointed out, the policies being implemented
in terms of digital ID, surveillance, destruction of economies, green policies,
it's all of a piece, whether it's the British or whether it's the European Union.
(15:08):
And, you know, and from inside the West, again, the first major disruption of all of that is Donald Trump.
And but he's also not alone because obviously Russia under Putin has very much of a national sovereign kind of policy where they're acting in the interest of Russia, not in the interest of oligarchs, not in the interest of a global financier elite.
(15:34):
And, you know, Trump's approach is as long as you're acting in the interests of your
country and not somebody else, I can work with you.
And in a sense, that's the difference between a country that you may have an adversarial
kind of relationship with, whether it's economically or strategically, like North Korea or China,
(15:56):
where their leaders are more or less acting in the interests of their country as they
perceive it, and a place like Maduro, where I don't think Maduro is acting on behalf of
Venezuelans. I think he's an arm of this narco-terrorist apparatus, which owes its allegiance
basically to this British imperial elite. So that's how Trump looks at things. If you're a
(16:23):
sovereign nation, I can work with you. If you're acting under your own interests, we may have
problems and it may take a while to work them out, but that's okay. I can work with you. But if
you're just a tool of this global financier elite, it's going to be very different.
How does the media play into all this? Because if you read the tea leaves of mainstream media,
(16:43):
they are very adamant that Trump too is an abject disaster. And if we're polling public sentiment,
Obviously, there's a contingent of Americans who think he's doing a good job.
There's also a contingent who voted for him and think he's not doing enough.
How would you basically describe what he's done so far in the context of this framework?
(17:09):
And what would you say to people?
And how would you set their expectations, I think?
Well, I think the most important thing that that is is not getting across through the media, whether it's the hostile mainstream media,
or I'll call the controlled opposition like Fox, you know, media and so on, which, quote,
(17:30):
supports Trump up to a point, but they still want war with Russia. They still want war with China.
They still love Wall Street, you know, and so on. So I think what is not getting out,
although I think I've seen there's definitely a shift since the off-year elections back at the
beginning of the month in the administration is getting across to people the importance of the
(17:51):
revolutionary change in economic policy that Trump is carrying out. And I will get to the
national security strategy, which was just announced this morning, because I encourage
everybody to read it. It's 33 pages. You know, just stop doom scrolling for a half an hour and
(18:12):
read it, because you will be shocked by how much of it is about economic policy. And I'm going to
read one section of it. I haven't even had a chance to read the whole thing myself,
because I've been jumping from this to that. But this part a friend of mine sent to me.
He said, this is our national security strategy, okay? We want a gainfully employed citizenry with
(18:37):
no one sitting on the sidelines who takes satisfaction from knowing that their work is
essential to the prosperity of our nation and to the well-being of individuals and families.
This cannot be accomplished without growing numbers of strong traditional families that raise healthy children.
And then the next section is pro-American worker.
American policy must be pro-worker, not merely pro-growth.
(19:01):
And it will prioritize our own workers.
We must rebuild an economy in which prosperity is broadly based and widely shared, not concentrated at the top or localized in certain industries or a few parts of our country.
That's really quite stunning.
And if you look at the whole of what Trump is doing, and you can get a good handle of it if you watch the cabinet meeting from the other day.
(19:28):
And I also recommend stop doom scrolling and just go watch the whole cabinet meeting.
I mean, you know, put it on two times speed if you have to, but you're going to hear a team which is engaged in something that we have not seen in the United States in at least the post-war period, which is the revival of our physical economy at the expense of the financier parasites of which City of London is first among equals.
(19:57):
and just a forced march of getting investment back in to manufacturing, infrastructure, energy,
and creating the kind of good-paying jobs where one income can raise a family.
Everything, including setting up the skilled trades apprenticeship programs so we can upskill the population
(20:20):
and people can go out and get those kinds of jobs instead of being Uber drivers.
Trump sees this as our national security policy.
And he's absolutely right.
And I think the more people understand this is where we're going, and it may not all be
tangible in 2025, and a lot of it might not be tangible, say, in the first quarter of
(20:41):
2026.
I think more of it is going to become tangible by the second and the third quarters.
But whether you see the manufacturing jobs spring up in your community or not, people
have to understand this is a revolution as big as anything we've had since Abraham Lincoln or
George Washington. Well, it's very refreshing to hear that. And it's stunning that it is stunning
(21:07):
to hear something like that come out of a national strategic security memo, because it seems pretty
straightforward. Throughout, the whole thing is just infused with this. Here's another one.
The future belongs to makers. The United States will re-industrialize its economy,
reshore industrial production, encourage and attract investment in our workforce. And then
(21:31):
it goes on. Well, we've been led to believe that we can't do it. We don't have the intellectual
capital. We don't have the raw materials, resources. And the economy has been built in
such a way over the last five decades that we're just not built for it, which I think
that last point is certainly true. But I think it comes with this assumption that we can't revert to
(21:55):
an industrialized economy, which I find very hard to believe.
And it was deliberate. And if we want to get back to the city of London,
a key nodal point in the post-war period was 1971, when Nixon took the dollar off the gold
reserve standard and we ended Bretton Woods. Why did he do that? Because the dollar was under
tremendous pressure by the British. Now, there was probably another way out, but I wasn't there.
(22:20):
I was very young. And Nixon relied on the people who had been trained in British imperial financial
thinking, whether they were conservative or liberal. So he took that step. And that began
the process where everything was financialized. Our currency was financialized. It was no longer
a sovereign currency. Then everything else became an income stream. Healthcare, manufacturing,
(22:46):
transportation, energy. You no longer organized your economy to increase these kinds of physical
activities. Everything was simply then tied to some parasite, which just sucked everything out
of it. And of course, free trade was the next nodal point in terms of it. So we, by surrendering
to City of London policies hollowed out our economy and left us where we are today. But
(23:13):
there's no reason we can't rebuild it. And that's what this administration is committed to doing.
And you touched on the sort of position of the Trump administration, which was like,
hey, if you're a sovereign nation that is truly looking after the interest of your
nation itself and not being influenced by outside forces, we're willing to work with you. And I
(23:34):
watched your most recent video that you put on YouTube and you were talking about this,
these nuclear related meetings that were happening around the world over the last,
last week, what is, what happened and what is the profundity of, of what actually happened?
Well, if, if you stop and you think about what is the combination of economic, strategic,
(24:01):
and political power that could actually challenge this city of London-centered imperial
behemoth, I would say it's four countries, the United States, Russia, China, and India.
So what happened this week? You had Trump's team, Witkoff and Kushner, in Moscow meeting with Putin
(24:24):
in a five-hour meeting. And some of that meeting was definitely about economic policy, not just
trying to work out the details and the nuances of the Ukraine mess. Simultaneously, you have the
Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi meeting with Sergei Lavrov, his counterpart in Russia.
You know, as I said in my show, was this coordinated? I don't know. But the strategic
(24:47):
optics are pretty clear. There are the three superpowers, those three superpowers. And then
what's happened over the last couple of days? Putin is in India. Now, you know, the people who
like to play geopolitics, make sure the superpowers are always at each other's throats,
are going to say, oh, well, China was in Russia because Russia wants to have some kind of
(25:08):
counterweight against the United States, or Putin is in India, and India is having trade
conflicts with Trump, and they're playing that. I don't see it that way. I see this kind of
Trumpian world where these major sovereign nations are working things out amongst themselves,
And it has nothing to do with the rules-based globalist order. It has nothing to do with London, Europe, the city of London, the international financier elite, that you actually are getting the kind of dialogue you need among these, especially these four nations, which ultimately can be the bulwark of both the political, economic, and strategic reconfiguration of the world.
(25:52):
But again, not on some block. You know, that's my problem with the BRICS. You know, it's this block of countries. And I was on a show the other day and somewhat contentious with somebody saying, well, why doesn't Trump meet with the BRICS? I said, well, he's talking to Lula. He's talking to Russia. He's talking to China. He's talking to India. He's got problems with South Africa at this point. Why do you need BRICS? Why not just nation to nation to nation to nation and we figure out what's best?
(26:21):
why why can't the trump administration just come out and lay this out lay this all out and say hey
here's what's going on uh because it's somewhat cryptic or it's imperceptible if you're not
in the weeds as you are what's the what's the danger of laying out or the opponents
(26:43):
uh their their ways of operating particularly through time up to this point and then saying
hey this is what happened This is what we trying to do Why hasn that happened Because I feel like Well you know it would make all of our lives a lot easier Right Right You know I don know why I mean I know there certain realities that people should just be conscious of
(27:07):
First of all, I was with a group of people here in Michigan yesterday who supported Trump,
but are very unhappy about certain aspects of his policies as they've evolved and so on.
And I said, look, I'm not trying to make an excuse, but I want you to understand something.
At best, he controls his government at the level of the cabinet secretaries and maybe one level down.
(27:30):
I think you get below that and you still have, you can call it whatever you want, the deep state firmly embedded.
So how much maneuvering room does he have to have to, you know, come out and just sort of bear it all?
But I think if you look at, I think you're going to see more and more of a much clearer view of this.
(27:53):
In fact, two days where the administration, look, they're not going to call it the British and the city of London.
I mean, Trump has to deal with nations, you know, and if he has to go deal with Starmer, he'll go deal with him and he'll make nice with him, even though he may be undercutting the imperial policies that Starmer is.
(28:14):
you know, beholden to. So you're not going to have Trump come out and say, I don't think,
come out and say it's the British. But what I think you're going to see increasingly
is they are going to bring back much more of the focus on the globalist and the globalist
institutions. And again, if people read this new national security strategy document, you're going
(28:37):
to see over and over again, attacking the globalist institutions. Or a couple of days ago,
the White House put out a very short, beautiful statement on the anniversary of the Monroe
Doctrine. And I jotted down what it said. The American people, not foreign nations or globalist
institutions, will control their own destiny. So I think that, you know, you're going to see
(29:03):
this administration drawing the American people more and more into the real nature of the fight,
which is these globalist institutions. And, you know, those of us out there who
have, you know, a more, a more, as I say, brand name version of it,
we'll just keep educating people and showing them this is what this really means.
(29:26):
Well, you mentioned the layer which he probably has the most power is at the cabinet level.
How would you compare his cabinet in his second term compared to the first? Do you think he
learned a lot of lessons during his first term and four years off. There's, there's frankly nobody
in this cabinet that I have seen a particularly large problem with. I mean, some people look,
(29:51):
you have, and you also have the Trump effect. And, and I see this here in Michigan, where we have a
bunch of people running for Congress and a bunch of people running for Senate. And some of them
have run before. And frankly, some of them have run really terrible campaigns. And now you're
you're seeing the ones who've got any brains are running on Donald Trump's policies. That's the
Trump effect. You know, did these people suddenly become better? I don't know. I hope so. But Trump
(30:16):
has set a new standard. So I think it's the same thing with the cabinet. I mean, I think there's
some people who had different kinds of tendencies in the past where, you know, you could have said
they were more neocon. I won't name names. I'll just let people draw their own conclusions. But
I think what you're seeing is that they're loyal to Trump and they are working as a team
(30:38):
and they get it, that this is transformational.
So this cabinet is amazing.
I mean, whether it's Lutnick, whether it's the labor secretary, whether, I mean, the
biggest surprise for me is Scott Besson.
Did I ever think I would be cheering on a treasury secretary?
(30:59):
You know, every Treasury secretary that we've seen in my lifetime, you know, has just been a rubber stamp for Wall Street in the city of London.
And this guy, Besson, gets it in terms of workers, Main Street, industry, changing the direction of the country.
He gave a really excellent interview once where he said, you know, the Democratic strategy has always been compensate the losers.
(31:25):
You know, we take away your jobs, we take away your livelihood, we take away your future,
and we throw some money at you.
And what did he say?
He said, I don't think we're losers.
I don't think these people are losers.
It's the system that was broken.
Think about that.
A Treasury Secretary saying it's the system that was broken.
I think everybody in Trump's cabinet understands that.
(31:46):
Well, let's stay on Scott Besson for a while, because I think, or maybe not for a while,
but just dig a little deeper, because there's many.
I mean, I come from the economic side of things.
This is predominantly a Bitcoin show.
I think a lot of the problems that exist in America today come from the fact that central
banks have corrupted our money.
(32:08):
And there are many, myself included, who think that the Treasury Secretary is arguably the
most important cabinet position in any current administration when you consider the state
of the economy and, most importantly, the state of the national debt.
And similarly to you, I wasn't too well aware of Scott Besson until the rumor started that he could be in the running for Treasury secretary.
(32:32):
He started looking into it and even a year ago, but now more so.
It's like, OK, if there is going to be a guy in this position to try to reorient the American economy, this seems like an incredible candidate.
Like how important is his position in your mind?
I think it's really critical.
And I think it's really interesting. You know, Trump keeps saying I'd like him to be the Fed chairman. And Besson says, no, I want to stay where I am because, frankly, he has more power as Treasury secretary because Fed is just monetary tinkering.
(33:06):
And a chairman which is more amenable to what Trump is trying to do will be fine, you know, like whomever he picks.
I mean, everyone's assuming it's going to be Hasser.
And we'll be able to ameliorate some of the damage that the Fed does.
But at Treasury, you can actually do things.
And very interesting interview that he did with Breitbart, I think it was, unless I'm getting my interviews confused.
(33:32):
He recently did an interview at the Treasury, and they asked him, what was the most surprising
thing about you?
You found out about the Treasury secretary job.
He said, 40 to 50 percent of what I do is national security.
Now, part of that is tariffs.
But then let's get back to drug money flows and, you know, Venezuela and offshore islands
(33:55):
and so on.
You know, you have somebody in that position who not only can play a role in terms of shaping economic policy to build up the industrial base of the United States again, but you have somebody in that position who actually knows what the enemy's financial operations are and is in a position to carry out financial warfare against it.
(34:17):
Yeah, because you mentioned the Caymans. And this, I think I covered this in my newsletter earlier this year, but it's become more apparent that there's definitely some dark money things going on in the Cayman Islands, particularly, I can bring this back to Scott Besson, as it pertains to treasuries.
There's sort of a black box of treasury holdings within the Caymans, and a lot of people are suspecting that it is just a slush fund for these nefarious activities.
(34:47):
I mean, depending on how you count them, one could argue that the Cayman Islands technically is the largest holder, foreign holder of treasuries in the world, surpassing Japan, the UK and China.
Right. I mean, it could be. And, you know, people have to keep this into account.
You know, we have certain vulnerabilities. I mean, previous administrations, through their insane policies, have left the United States extremely vulnerable. I mean, let's just talk about rare earths. And obviously, there's, I mean, look at what Trump did with China, bought us a year so that we can actually start getting production going on in the United States.
(35:22):
But, you know, you look at the enormous debt of the United States, which is in the hands of other countries. So in a certain sense, to get back to your other question, why don't they just come out and say this? I think they're taking a whole lot of very careful, deliberate steps to put the United States in a position where it can defend itself, where it can begin to extricate itself from this financier system.
(35:48):
But this is not, you know, this is not the kind of thing where you just snap your finger and say, oh, bye bye, city of London.
We're on our own.
And I think this question of U.S. Treasury holdings in other people's hands, you know, is a big aspect of it.
So they have to have all of this in mind as they take each one of these steps.
(36:10):
Yeah.
So that leads to a couple of questions, first of which is who is on board with us?
Obviously, you mentioned Russia.
China, India, conversations happening over there.
If they're acting sovereign, maybe they will play ball in the sense it's like, hey, if you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone.
We'll do some trade intermittent, maybe not even intermittently.
(36:33):
We'll have good trade deals and you take care of the West.
Obviously, the national security memo that went out this morning, real big focus on the Western hemisphere.
We don't want to get into these foreign wars across the world anymore.
we really want to focus on our locality, our geographic locality, and the economies around us.
(36:54):
Who in the Western Hemisphere, in your mind, is excited about this policy positioning?
Well, obviously, we've got Argentina, and the administration is clearly trying to influence
things in Honduras. It's a difficult relationship with Mexico, and with many of these countries in
(37:16):
Central and South America, I think people have to be cognizant of the fact that you have almost
dual power situations, right, where you have the narco-traffico cartels with as much, if not more,
power than the governments. So governments have to take that into account, you know, as they make
(37:36):
their negotiations, which is why I think this whole attack on, you know, what friends of mine
many years ago called Dope Incorporated. This whole attack on the drug trafficking,
the money flows that go with it, the terrorism that comes with it, that's going to be foundational
to creating a situation where sovereign nations can actually act in their own interests.
(38:00):
So I think our hemisphere right now is a work in progress. Of course, we're not going to talk
about Canada because that's in the hands of the central banker, central banker, Mark Carney.
the mark harney and people i'm sure you've seen the documentary by john titus all plenaries but
um basically mark harney in the center of the hsbc zeta cartel money laundering scheme obviously
(38:26):
was the head of the bank of england at one point um yeah the only the only the only foreigner to
ever be head of the bank of england so this man is trusted and the fact that the canadians welcomed
him in with open arms to be their prime minister. Well, not a lot. Not all of them did. And it was
one of those elections with a parliamentary system where you look at the nuances of it. He really is
(38:48):
not that, he doesn't have that much political support. And of course, there's the Western
provinces are not happy. I mean, he's trying to tack in Trump world. So, you know, he's doing
certain concessions in terms of internal flows of energy, which you never had before to try and
keep the Albertans happier, that, you know, they've got some kind of economic development.
(39:12):
But all of this is, I think, just biding time to continue to play his nefarious role,
you know, in that circumstance. But at least he's honest, because when he was at the ASEAN
summit about a month ago, he said, the rules-based liberal free trade order is over.
(39:34):
They know it.
They know Trump has ended it.
And his job is to quietly try and figure out, well, how much can I sabotage it?
Or how can I set up some kind of other operation?
But among the smarter of these guys, or at least the ones that are getting their orders
from the smarters of these guys, they know what they're up against with Trump.
(39:56):
And it'll be always, they always have a two front attack.
You know, the frontal attack, you know, all the political stuff that he's being hit with in terms of the boat strikes, everything else, you know, try and knock out the people he relies on the most, like Hegseth or Tulsi Gabbard or Kash Patel or whatever.
(40:17):
And then you know the quieter okay what are we doing to try and undermine these policies economically and politically in the back room Yeah Well sticking on the narco boats getting taken out I think you had a really good explanation of what the second and third order effects of this are
(40:39):
I think it's important to go over those with the audience who may be looking at this and saying, hey, we're just indiscriminately bombing people in the Atlantic Ocean.
what's going on here. But to your point of doping being a big part of this, there could be a
strategic reason for bombing these boats specifically in terms of the reaction and insights from the
(41:02):
narcos. Yeah. And I was listening to a show the other day and one of the people, a retired general,
Blaine, I'm blocking on his last name, I think it's Holt. He made the point, or maybe it was
Ian Burlingame, I can't remember. But one of them made the point that you look at that carrier group
(41:23):
that's in the Caribbean, the USS Gerald Ford, are they just there for firepower? Or think of the
enormous electronic surveillance that you have. And think of what happens when you bomb one of
those drug boats. You know, the communications lines light up and they're tracking all of this
stuff and putting together a map of how this dope incorporated operation works and tracing
(41:48):
it back to bank accounts and tracing it back to individuals and putting this entire map
together.
So it's like they're hitting at the bottom level of this to illuminate how this thing
operates at the higher and higher levels.
And I think they're dead serious.
And that gets back to Scott Besson saying 40 to 50% of what I do at Treasury is national
(42:10):
security.
Well, that's not just tariffs.
That's this.
Yeah.
And so how do you think, do you think the city of London notices that its back is against
the wall and it's going to lay over?
They're going to continue to do everything they can do.
I mean, this thing around Hegseth and the bombing, I mean, if they could, they will
(42:34):
try and turn this into impeachment territory.
And we've got plenty of weak Republicans.
I don't know that they would ever push it to that point over the next year.
But you can bet the, you know, the key nodal point is the midterm elections.
You know, we have to hold the House and hold the Senate and optimally increase our margins, which is hard in an off-year election.
(43:00):
And even harder, make sure more of those Republicans are actually mega Republicans.
But that, to me, the battle over the next year is going to be that, because I think Trump will be able to continue to move.
Legislatively, it'll be much more glacial than, I mean, we got the big, beautiful bill through and Trump was a genius to put all of it in one bill.
(43:27):
You know, maybe he can embarrass enough of these senators to get rid of the filibuster.
But if he doesn't, I don't think you're going to see a whole lot going on legislatively, you know, except on some of these 80-20 issues where people will just burn their congressmen and their senators butts.
He'll continue to move in terms of executive orders in the presidency.
(43:47):
I think we'll begin to see the effect of some of this economic restructuring.
I think people will start to feel, I mean, if people are paying attention, the price of eggs are down, the price of gas is down.
You know, the price of things that Trump has some control over are actually down.
But people need to see jobs and they need to see, you know, a real change in the standard of living.
(44:10):
So, you know, we're going to be in quite a quite a tense year as we go into the midterm elections.
But I think the big hole card for the city of London and the elites is they want to take this Congress away from Trump.
And if they do that, I don't really know what it will look like, but it won't be good.
(44:33):
Well, to that point, like how critical for ensuring that we live in a free and sovereign country is this next year?
Is it make or break?
I think it's make or break.
I mean, I think this is the equivalent of what Lincoln had to do to win the Civil War.
If we had lost that civil war or if Lincoln himself had not been elected in 1861, we wouldn't be sitting here in a great sovereign republic. We'd be a bunch of squabbling, balkanized states. And I think the next year is absolutely critical.
(45:09):
And, you know, what I do with my shows, what I do with my political organizing is just try and educate the MAGA movement so they understand the nature of this fight.
And not only can back up President Trump, but create much more of a bench in terms of people who are running for office at every level, who think this way, who understand this, so that he's got much more maneuvering room.
(45:34):
And we've got a much better chance of keeping people in the MAGA coalition, not being diverted on all of this nonsense, which is being spun up right now, Tucker versus Candace or whatever, you know, and stay focused on what it is Trump is actually doing so that we have an electorate, which is smart enough to make the right choices come next November.
(45:58):
If you're looking at the polling day, it's not looking great right now.
It never does at this stage of the game.
And I think I think the administration realizes they've got to sharpen the message on the economy.
So Peter Navarro was on Bannon a week and a half ago and Bannon said, you know, did you jump the gun on the Golden Age?
(46:20):
Like, it's not here. You know, it's coming. And and Navarro said, yeah, we got the memo.
And so he's been doing, you know, on his sub stack, he's doing really good educationals in terms of this is where inflation comes from in this sector.
And this is what we're doing. J.D. Vance, I think, is taking the point on a lot of this.
(46:42):
And Trump is going on the road. That's that's the best way you can do it.
You send the man out there to talk directly to the American people about how you actually recreate an actual American economy.
And I think as that kicks in, we'll see the poll numbers get back to something we can work with.
(47:02):
Not that I necessarily trust polls all that much, but there's something out there.
Yeah.
How did you get into this in the first place?
It's a really long story.
I've been political pretty much since I was hatched.
I campaigned for Bobby Kennedy Sr. in 1968, and I was in California when he was shot.
(47:30):
So, you know, I went through the, I saw the devolution of the United States coming out of those assassinations.
And in the early 1970s, I ran into a man named Lyndon LaRouche, who you or some of your viewers may be familiar with,
who was a physical economist and who pretty much saw where all of this was going.
(47:53):
I was very much of a maverick.
He passed away a few years ago, and some of us took a different direction from those who
are still affiliated with his widow, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who for legal reasons, I have
to say, I have nothing to do with.
But, you know, I sort of have lived in the world of being in a maverick organization
all my life.
And then along comes Donald Trump.
(48:15):
So that made it kind of easy.
Well, I guess the last question I ask is, is economics, monetary, fiscal policy. I mean, there's many who believe, I mean, bringing it back to Scott Besson, he had the now infamous fireside chat at the Manhattan Institute, I believe in July of 2024, in which he said, hey, there's a global economic reordering underway.
(48:41):
and I would like to be part of the team that is trying to advise the president on how to navigate this global monetary reordering.
What does the monetary system look at?
There's a lot of talk that the perceived independence of the Fed, which is very hand wavy, is going to be completely demarcated
(49:05):
and that the Treasury is going to take over monetary policy completely.
What are you seeing in terms of the transition we have financially,
particularly how the monetary plumbing works?
Well, yeah, I think Besson just this week said, you know,
we want to basically cut back the mission of the Fed and so on.
(49:29):
I think to the extent that they can do things administratively,
you know, through executive orders and so on, they are going to try and, you know,
reduce the negative impact of the Fed as much as possible. But I think the interesting thing
they're doing, because everybody's looking over here at the Fed, well, let's look over here
(49:49):
at the alternate lines of financial flows that they're setting up. You know, when Trump first
came in, he did put out an EO saying, let's look at a sovereign wealth fund. I think what they've
done is rather than one single new institution, first of all, they've got 18 to 20 trillion dollars
(50:11):
of foreign investment coming into the United States, which is going to be directly channeled
into productive investment, into steel plants, into shipbuilding, into nuclear power. A lot of
it will go into AI, but that means a lot of it needs to go into power generation and other things.
So it's sort of like they're just creating an alternative to the Fed. And there's institutions inside various departments, which are kind of like little reconstruction finance corporations, especially in energy and others, where they can again begin to channel credit into the real economy.
(50:47):
I think the important thing that they're doing, however far they can move in terms of restructuring things institutionally between the Treasury and the Fed, is just figuring out how do we start getting credit into the productive sector?
And I think what they're doing is absolutely masterful.
(51:08):
And it's not, oh, I'm going to introduce a bill tomorrow morning to get rid of the Fed.
Yeah, you and what Congress is going to do that?
You know, I mean, we're two, three cycles away from a Congress, I think, that would even consider something like that.
Well, let's not wring our hands.
Let's just figure out how do we get done what we need to get done.
And I think as people begin to see, wait a minute, there's a different way to do this.
(51:31):
This may still be over here, but over here, some really good stuff is happening.
You begin to lay the political basis for perhaps ultimately getting rid of the Federal Reserve.
But again, from where I sit politically, we're election cycles away from having an election
cycle to do something like that.
It's like people who say, well, get out of NATO.
(51:52):
Yeah, well, you and what Congress?
Congress has to approve that.
So give this administration credit for doing what they're doing, recognizing that there
are certain things legislatively or institutionally they may not be able to do immediately.
And so just take the ground that you can while it's there.
And there's a lot of it. There's a lot of it when you actually want to do what Trump wants to do, which is reshore manufacturing, create real jobs and stop the wars. There's a lot he can do without turning the switch off on either the Fed or NATO.
(52:26):
Mm hmm. Susan, this has been incredibly insightful. Thank you for your time. Before we leave,
is there anything we didn't touch on that you think is pressing? Any final notes?
Well, I would just say to your viewers, you know, what I said is this question of the midterms,
and it's really critical that people are informed, are active, are smart,
(52:52):
are engaged as much as they possibly can with one single mission, which is we have to defend
Donald Trump, whatever form that takes. And in some cases, it may just be, we just have to get
the Republican elected, whether he's good, bad, or indifferent. In other cases, it's going to be,
we're going to get a really good candidate. You know, this is, you know, this is battlefront
(53:16):
decisions that people are going to have to make, but people have to be engaged politically and not
just sitting there doom scrolling the latest social media scandal. Doom scrolling is very
popular these days. It's very popular. It's bad for your... And we have an antidote for doom
scrolling at prometheanaction.com. So I encourage people to head over there and see what we have to
(53:39):
offer. We will link to that in the show notes. Again, Susan, thank you for your time. Thank you
for your work. And hopefully we can do this at some point again in the future. Sure. Hope so too.
All right.
Peace.
Love freaks.
Susan Kukindo, welcome to the show.
(00:02):
Thanks for having me. Looking forward to it.
Like I was saying right before we hit record, I very much am looking forward to this.
As I was explaining, we've had a recurring guest on, Tom Luongo, who's very passionate about the City of London and the fact that most people have not diagnosed the City of London as the problem of geopolitics today, of global control.
(00:25):
You've been on this subject for quite a while and have been putting out incredible content about how it pertains to what's happening in the world today.
But first, I think just to give a high level synopsis of the City of London thesis, their control over the global economy and political affairs for the last 300 years.
(00:46):
And then we can pull it forward to today and what's happening.
Sure. I mean, I think the fastest way for people to think about this is just think about what we fought the American Revolution against. We fought it against a British empire. Now, what was that British empire?
Well, the British Empire was very much dominated by two institutions, the Bank of England and the British East India Company, both of which represented kind of like the modern codification of imperialism, where you have private financial interests who actually have more power than the nominal governments.
(01:25):
Now, it gets a little different when you have monarchies, but essentially, you know, when you're looking up the British Empire, you look at the monarchy and all of the institutions that are connected to that.
You know, I always remind people, for those of us who, you know, remember the old James Bond series, on Her Majesty's Secret Service, on Her Majesty's Secret Service, who runs MI6?
(01:51):
It's not the government.
It's not the parliament.
But you have this complex of things, which includes the Bank of England, the British
Intelligence Services.
But then the city of London itself is this unique incorporated entity of I don't remember
how many square miles, which has its own independent existence.
(02:11):
And it is where the major financial flows of the world go through.
So when you look at that complex, this is what we actually fought the American Revolution against, because their intention is we're going to keep everybody under our control, your financial flows, and by the way, through perpetual wars, and get them pitted against each other.
(02:35):
And they have no place else to go for finances other than these private central banks or the institutions that are tied to the city of London.
And then the upstart Americans came along and said, no, we don't like that. We want to be sovereign. We want to be sovereign politically. We want to be sovereign economically. And one of the most important things that we did, which was really quite as much, we made an economic revolution as much as we did a political revolution.
(03:03):
Revolution, we created a national bank where the nation was not subservient to private bankers,
but the national bank was subservient to the interests of the nation. And of course,
that went by the way in various iterations. And then we ended up with our own central bank
in 1913. So when you think city of London, think about this entire imperial complex,
(03:29):
which is no different, again, than what we fought the American Revolution against.
And is it safe to assume that today in 2025, we are fighting yet another revolution? It's not only
us this time around, but it's more behind the scenes than it was in 1776.
(03:49):
Yeah. You know, most people in the MAGA movement and more broadly think of it from the standpoint
of globalists and globalization. Well, there's nothing wrong with that. That's a good generic
title for it. But the brand name is go back to the British Empire and then trace the institutions
that they created that still exist to this day in terms of foreign policy, in terms of central
(04:12):
banking institutions, in terms of intelligence agencies. And you'll see what it is we and
Donald Trump are essentially fighting against. Well, let's dive into current events. There's
a lot of activity off the coast of Venezuela, as we were discussing before we hit record.
There is a new sort of economic policy that was released earlier today, really focusing on
(04:39):
the Western hemisphere. If you look at the mainstream media, a lot of the pundits are
pining about extrajudicial bombing of narco terrorists and that not being okay war has not
been officially waged through Congress. And so this is a bad thing. How does this all pertain to
(05:00):
this intercabal squabble, if you will, between the West, the United States, the Trump administration
would like the US to be sovereign economically and geopolitically and the city of London?
Well, this actually gets to the core of a very important aspect of this, because what you're dealing with, there's one more iteration, shall we say, of the city of London, and that's international drug trafficking.
(05:28):
You know, historically, people are familiar with Britain's opium wars against China, which were used politically to basically, you know, make China subservient to them.
But also financially, because there are huge dark money flows tied to the international drug trade in the trillions and trillions of dollars.
(05:50):
And what you've seen emerging in South and Central America with Venezuela as a key nodal point in all of this is one of these nodal points for what we call dope incorporated.
Um, the, the, especially the, the, one of, one of the key transit points for a lot of
(06:11):
this dirty money going back to the seventies and eighties and so on has been Britain's
offshore Caribbean islands, you know, totally deregulated, no transparency.
You know, you can drive a gorilla of dirty money through these things and nobody will
ever know it.
So you've had this huge underbelly of the global financier elite, in particular, the British side of it. And what you find in countries like Venezuela and other countries, which to one degree or another, you know, are in contention with literally a narco-terrorist government.
(06:50):
I mean, if you think about this, if you think about the narco-terrorists, not a bunch of guys from South America who are making money, you know, shipping fentanyl and cocaine into the United States, but as part of this global financier elite, you know, this just happens to be their Latin or Central American division of it, you're literally dealing with what is the equivalent of an entire foreign entity down there.
(07:18):
You know, I've often said, you know, people say, well, we've had failed wars on drugs.
No, we haven't.
We've never fought one because the real war on drugs has got to be against these financier
interests.
But of course, they don't function without the actual drugs, flow of drugs as well.
And Wall Street and London have never wanted a war on drugs, which is why we've never had
(07:42):
a serious one.
And that is what I think Trump is targeting.
And this is a war.
And it's a war in which there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of American casualties.
So he has declared this to be a national emergency.
He's declared these narco-terrorist gangs to be just that.
And, of course, you have, you know, the entire anti-Trump opposition, which, you know, never seemed to notice how many innocent civilians Barack Obama droned when he was president of the United States.
(08:14):
including infamous situations where they'd go in and they'd drone a wedding, and then they'd go
back in and they'd drone the first responders. Hundreds and hundreds of civilians and women and
children were killed by Barack Obama in much less clear circumstances than what we're dealing with
right now, which is a foreign-financed and directed assault against the very lives of the American
(08:42):
people. So this really does go to the heart as much as anything of the city of London.
Well, to that point, how much influence has the city of London had on domestic politics here
in the United States as it pertains to Venezuela? There's been a, I wouldn't even consider them
headlines. There's been a lot of theories about the voting technology and the servers
(09:06):
that were sort of storing the votes being located in Venezuela.
Obviously, the deep state as a concept, particularly the CIA and FBI,
colluding with foreign interests to get certain things done has been a long-running theory.
How much of this, from your perspective, is actually happening, and how is it happening?
(09:26):
I'm not ready to say from my own investigations and personal experience
how much of that is actually run through foreign countries. I mean, I'm politically active here in
Michigan. After the 2020 election, I got very much involved in election integrity efforts here
in Michigan because it was pretty obvious what happened here at the infamous TCF Center. And
(09:53):
the work that I've done over the years in terms of this, the vote stealing is primarily the
absentee ballots. It's not gremlins in the machines and international information packets
coming from Serbia or Venezuela. Is there something there? There could be. I don't think
it's the most fundamental part. I think the most important thing for people to think about is the
(10:17):
way that this imperial system, this British imperial system, has infected most of our
institutions since the beginning of the 20th century. So it's not like you have to draw a
direct connecto between this event and here's the address in London, but just look at how our entire
foreign policy establishment for over 100 years has been inculcated in British imperial thinking.
(10:44):
You know, the British recognized that the United States was becoming a powerful force coming out of
the Civil War and going into the turn of the 20th century. They took care of some of our power by
assassinating our best presidents like Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley. But at that point,
they recognized even with that, we were becoming an industrial power. Other nations around the
(11:08):
world, nations like Russia, Germany, Japan, China, and many others were modeling themselves
on the American system and not the British system. And the British said, well, we're going to have to
figure out how to capture the United States intellectually. And you see the subversion of
our education institutions. You see obvious institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations,
(11:29):
which was founded in 1922 as a direct outgrowth of the British Roundtable. And the British
Roundtable was very clear, along with the Cecil Rhodes' will, we have to bring the United States
back into the imperial fold. We're going to figure out how to do that. So they started setting up
institution after institution in the United States to just get us to do their bidding
(11:52):
because they had corrupted the way we thought. And Donald Trump came along in 2016 and began
to disrupt that. And he came back in 2024 and he's really disrupting that.
Yeah. As it pertains to the Council of Foreign Relations, I think when USAID got decimated
in the beginning of this administration.
(12:12):
It was astonishing.
I think the sort of meeting Zoom recordings
leaked a couple of months ago,
but it was kind of appalling,
may not be the right word,
but it was very, it was astonishing
how emboldened they were,
basically saying we can,
despite what's happening to USAID,
(12:34):
we can act sort of above that.
We are coordinating to make sure
that this isn't really a big disruption to what we're doing here.
Yeah. I mean, I think it has disrupted a lot of what they're doing. And if you
go back to the Venezuela situation, if you actually disrupt the global drug trade,
you are going to be disrupting even more of the financial flows that this apparatus depends on.
(13:00):
So Trump is a gigantic disruptor at this point, and they are obviously not amused.
through. I mean, shifting before we come back to the national security strategy that was just
released, I mean, shifting to Europe to looking at what's happening there in terms of digital ID,
the increase in censorship it seems apparent if we running down this thesis and using this as the core framework from which we view the world it seems that the city of London has very tight control over Europe the continent of Europe And I look as a Westerner as a United States citizen
(13:37):
at what's happening in Germany, UK, Ireland,
and completely dumbfounded by what's happening,
particularly with censorship laws in this push.
Now we have the UK trying to sue X for speech that that people are putting on this American company's platform.
What is the state of Europe and can they get out of this?
(13:59):
Europe gave up its sovereignty with the EU.
I mean, that was a grand experiment, which the globalists succeeded in imposing on these countries.
So you, I mean, when you're looking at the EU, you're basically looking at just a bunch
of political and economic colonies, for that matter, with the exception of a few countries.
(14:22):
I mean, obviously, as we know, there are a few countries in Europe, like Hungary and
Slovakia and others who are, you know, kicking back and have more of a national or sovereign
kind of approach.
But, you know, and sometimes it gets, people get a little confused.
well, the British got out of Brexit. So, you know, aren't they different? Not really. You know,
(14:46):
they're perfectly capable of manipulating institutions, whether they're directly in
them or not in them. And obviously, as you pointed out, the policies being implemented
in terms of digital ID, surveillance, destruction of economies, green policies,
it's all of a piece, whether it's the British or whether it's the European Union.
(15:08):
And, you know, and from inside the West, again, the first major disruption of all of that is Donald Trump.
And but he's also not alone because obviously Russia under Putin has very much of a national sovereign kind of policy where they're acting in the interest of Russia, not in the interest of oligarchs, not in the interest of a global financier elite.
(15:34):
And, you know, Trump's approach is as long as you're acting in the interests of your
country and not somebody else, I can work with you.
And in a sense, that's the difference between a country that you may have an adversarial
kind of relationship with, whether it's economically or strategically, like North Korea or China,
(15:56):
where their leaders are more or less acting in the interests of their country as they
perceive it, and a place like Maduro, where I don't think Maduro is acting on behalf of
Venezuelans. I think he's an arm of this narco-terrorist apparatus, which owes its allegiance
basically to this British imperial elite. So that's how Trump looks at things. If you're a
(16:23):
sovereign nation, I can work with you. If you're acting under your own interests, we may have
problems and it may take a while to work them out, but that's okay. I can work with you. But if
you're just a tool of this global financier elite, it's going to be very different.
How does the media play into all this? Because if you read the tea leaves of mainstream media,
(16:43):
they are very adamant that Trump too is an abject disaster. And if we're polling public sentiment,
Obviously, there's a contingent of Americans who think he's doing a good job.
There's also a contingent who voted for him and think he's not doing enough.
How would you basically describe what he's done so far in the context of this framework?
(17:09):
And what would you say to people?
And how would you set their expectations, I think?
Well, I think the most important thing that that is is not getting across through the media, whether it's the hostile mainstream media,
or I'll call the controlled opposition like Fox, you know, media and so on, which, quote,
(17:30):
supports Trump up to a point, but they still want war with Russia. They still want war with China.
They still love Wall Street, you know, and so on. So I think what is not getting out,
although I think I've seen there's definitely a shift since the off-year elections back at the
beginning of the month in the administration is getting across to people the importance of the
(17:51):
revolutionary change in economic policy that Trump is carrying out. And I will get to the
national security strategy, which was just announced this morning, because I encourage
everybody to read it. It's 33 pages. You know, just stop doom scrolling for a half an hour and
(18:12):
read it, because you will be shocked by how much of it is about economic policy. And I'm going to
read one section of it. I haven't even had a chance to read the whole thing myself,
because I've been jumping from this to that. But this part a friend of mine sent to me.
He said, this is our national security strategy, okay? We want a gainfully employed citizenry with
(18:37):
no one sitting on the sidelines who takes satisfaction from knowing that their work is
essential to the prosperity of our nation and to the well-being of individuals and families.
This cannot be accomplished without growing numbers of strong traditional families that raise healthy children.
And then the next section is pro-American worker.
American policy must be pro-worker, not merely pro-growth.
(19:01):
And it will prioritize our own workers.
We must rebuild an economy in which prosperity is broadly based and widely shared, not concentrated at the top or localized in certain industries or a few parts of our country.
That's really quite stunning.
And if you look at the whole of what Trump is doing, and you can get a good handle of it if you watch the cabinet meeting from the other day.
(19:28):
And I also recommend stop doom scrolling and just go watch the whole cabinet meeting.
I mean, you know, put it on two times speed if you have to, but you're going to hear a team which is engaged in something that we have not seen in the United States in at least the post-war period, which is the revival of our physical economy at the expense of the financier parasites of which City of London is first among equals.
(19:57):
and just a forced march of getting investment back in to manufacturing, infrastructure, energy,
and creating the kind of good-paying jobs where one income can raise a family.
Everything, including setting up the skilled trades apprenticeship programs so we can upskill the population
(20:20):
and people can go out and get those kinds of jobs instead of being Uber drivers.
Trump sees this as our national security policy.
And he's absolutely right.
And I think the more people understand this is where we're going, and it may not all be
tangible in 2025, and a lot of it might not be tangible, say, in the first quarter of
(20:41):
2026.
I think more of it is going to become tangible by the second and the third quarters.
But whether you see the manufacturing jobs spring up in your community or not, people
have to understand this is a revolution as big as anything we've had since Abraham Lincoln or
George Washington. Well, it's very refreshing to hear that. And it's stunning that it is stunning
(21:07):
to hear something like that come out of a national strategic security memo, because it seems pretty
straightforward. Throughout, the whole thing is just infused with this. Here's another one.
The future belongs to makers. The United States will re-industrialize its economy,
reshore industrial production, encourage and attract investment in our workforce. And then
(21:31):
it goes on. Well, we've been led to believe that we can't do it. We don't have the intellectual
capital. We don't have the raw materials, resources. And the economy has been built in
such a way over the last five decades that we're just not built for it, which I think
that last point is certainly true. But I think it comes with this assumption that we can't revert to
(21:55):
an industrialized economy, which I find very hard to believe.
And it was deliberate. And if we want to get back to the city of London,
a key nodal point in the post-war period was 1971, when Nixon took the dollar off the gold
reserve standard and we ended Bretton Woods. Why did he do that? Because the dollar was under
tremendous pressure by the British. Now, there was probably another way out, but I wasn't there.
(22:20):
I was very young. And Nixon relied on the people who had been trained in British imperial financial
thinking, whether they were conservative or liberal. So he took that step. And that began
the process where everything was financialized. Our currency was financialized. It was no longer
a sovereign currency. Then everything else became an income stream. Healthcare, manufacturing,
(22:46):
transportation, energy. You no longer organized your economy to increase these kinds of physical
activities. Everything was simply then tied to some parasite, which just sucked everything out
of it. And of course, free trade was the next nodal point in terms of it. So we, by surrendering
to City of London policies hollowed out our economy and left us where we are today. But
(23:13):
there's no reason we can't rebuild it. And that's what this administration is committed to doing.
And you touched on the sort of position of the Trump administration, which was like,
hey, if you're a sovereign nation that is truly looking after the interest of your
nation itself and not being influenced by outside forces, we're willing to work with you. And I
(23:34):
watched your most recent video that you put on YouTube and you were talking about this,
these nuclear related meetings that were happening around the world over the last,
last week, what is, what happened and what is the profundity of, of what actually happened?
Well, if, if you stop and you think about what is the combination of economic, strategic,
(24:01):
and political power that could actually challenge this city of London-centered imperial
behemoth, I would say it's four countries, the United States, Russia, China, and India.
So what happened this week? You had Trump's team, Witkoff and Kushner, in Moscow meeting with Putin
(24:24):
in a five-hour meeting. And some of that meeting was definitely about economic policy, not just
trying to work out the details and the nuances of the Ukraine mess. Simultaneously, you have the
Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi meeting with Sergei Lavrov, his counterpart in Russia.
You know, as I said in my show, was this coordinated? I don't know. But the strategic
(24:47):
optics are pretty clear. There are the three superpowers, those three superpowers. And then
what's happened over the last couple of days? Putin is in India. Now, you know, the people who
like to play geopolitics, make sure the superpowers are always at each other's throats,
are going to say, oh, well, China was in Russia because Russia wants to have some kind of
(25:08):
counterweight against the United States, or Putin is in India, and India is having trade
conflicts with Trump, and they're playing that. I don't see it that way. I see this kind of
Trumpian world where these major sovereign nations are working things out amongst themselves,
And it has nothing to do with the rules-based globalist order. It has nothing to do with London, Europe, the city of London, the international financier elite, that you actually are getting the kind of dialogue you need among these, especially these four nations, which ultimately can be the bulwark of both the political, economic, and strategic reconfiguration of the world.
(25:52):
But again, not on some block. You know, that's my problem with the BRICS. You know, it's this block of countries. And I was on a show the other day and somewhat contentious with somebody saying, well, why doesn't Trump meet with the BRICS? I said, well, he's talking to Lula. He's talking to Russia. He's talking to China. He's talking to India. He's got problems with South Africa at this point. Why do you need BRICS? Why not just nation to nation to nation to nation and we figure out what's best?
(26:21):
why why can't the trump administration just come out and lay this out lay this all out and say hey
here's what's going on uh because it's somewhat cryptic or it's imperceptible if you're not
in the weeds as you are what's the what's the danger of laying out or the opponents
(26:43):
uh their their ways of operating particularly through time up to this point and then saying
hey this is what happened This is what we trying to do Why hasn that happened Because I feel like Well you know it would make all of our lives a lot easier Right Right You know I don know why I mean I know there certain realities that people should just be conscious of
(27:07):
First of all, I was with a group of people here in Michigan yesterday who supported Trump,
but are very unhappy about certain aspects of his policies as they've evolved and so on.
And I said, look, I'm not trying to make an excuse, but I want you to understand something.
At best, he controls his government at the level of the cabinet secretaries and maybe one level down.
(27:30):
I think you get below that and you still have, you can call it whatever you want, the deep state firmly embedded.
So how much maneuvering room does he have to have to, you know, come out and just sort of bear it all?
But I think if you look at, I think you're going to see more and more of a much clearer view of this.
(27:53):
In fact, two days where the administration, look, they're not going to call it the British and the city of London.
I mean, Trump has to deal with nations, you know, and if he has to go deal with Starmer, he'll go deal with him and he'll make nice with him, even though he may be undercutting the imperial policies that Starmer is.
(28:14):
you know, beholden to. So you're not going to have Trump come out and say, I don't think,
come out and say it's the British. But what I think you're going to see increasingly
is they are going to bring back much more of the focus on the globalist and the globalist
institutions. And again, if people read this new national security strategy document, you're going
(28:37):
to see over and over again, attacking the globalist institutions. Or a couple of days ago,
the White House put out a very short, beautiful statement on the anniversary of the Monroe
Doctrine. And I jotted down what it said. The American people, not foreign nations or globalist
institutions, will control their own destiny. So I think that, you know, you're going to see
(29:03):
this administration drawing the American people more and more into the real nature of the fight,
which is these globalist institutions. And, you know, those of us out there who
have, you know, a more, a more, as I say, brand name version of it,
we'll just keep educating people and showing them this is what this really means.
(29:26):
Well, you mentioned the layer which he probably has the most power is at the cabinet level.
How would you compare his cabinet in his second term compared to the first? Do you think he
learned a lot of lessons during his first term and four years off. There's, there's frankly nobody
in this cabinet that I have seen a particularly large problem with. I mean, some people look,
(29:51):
you have, and you also have the Trump effect. And, and I see this here in Michigan, where we have a
bunch of people running for Congress and a bunch of people running for Senate. And some of them
have run before. And frankly, some of them have run really terrible campaigns. And now you're
you're seeing the ones who've got any brains are running on Donald Trump's policies. That's the
Trump effect. You know, did these people suddenly become better? I don't know. I hope so. But Trump
(30:16):
has set a new standard. So I think it's the same thing with the cabinet. I mean, I think there's
some people who had different kinds of tendencies in the past where, you know, you could have said
they were more neocon. I won't name names. I'll just let people draw their own conclusions. But
I think what you're seeing is that they're loyal to Trump and they are working as a team
(30:38):
and they get it, that this is transformational.
So this cabinet is amazing.
I mean, whether it's Lutnick, whether it's the labor secretary, whether, I mean, the
biggest surprise for me is Scott Besson.
Did I ever think I would be cheering on a treasury secretary?
(30:59):
You know, every Treasury secretary that we've seen in my lifetime, you know, has just been a rubber stamp for Wall Street in the city of London.
And this guy, Besson, gets it in terms of workers, Main Street, industry, changing the direction of the country.
He gave a really excellent interview once where he said, you know, the Democratic strategy has always been compensate the losers.
(31:25):
You know, we take away your jobs, we take away your livelihood, we take away your future,
and we throw some money at you.
And what did he say?
He said, I don't think we're losers.
I don't think these people are losers.
It's the system that was broken.
Think about that.
A Treasury Secretary saying it's the system that was broken.
I think everybody in Trump's cabinet understands that.
(31:46):
Well, let's stay on Scott Besson for a while, because I think, or maybe not for a while,
but just dig a little deeper, because there's many.
I mean, I come from the economic side of things.
This is predominantly a Bitcoin show.
I think a lot of the problems that exist in America today come from the fact that central
banks have corrupted our money.
(32:08):
And there are many, myself included, who think that the Treasury Secretary is arguably the
most important cabinet position in any current administration when you consider the state
of the economy and, most importantly, the state of the national debt.
And similarly to you, I wasn't too well aware of Scott Besson until the rumor started that he could be in the running for Treasury secretary.
(32:32):
He started looking into it and even a year ago, but now more so.
It's like, OK, if there is going to be a guy in this position to try to reorient the American economy, this seems like an incredible candidate.
Like how important is his position in your mind?
I think it's really critical.
And I think it's really interesting. You know, Trump keeps saying I'd like him to be the Fed chairman. And Besson says, no, I want to stay where I am because, frankly, he has more power as Treasury secretary because Fed is just monetary tinkering.
(33:06):
And a chairman which is more amenable to what Trump is trying to do will be fine, you know, like whomever he picks.
I mean, everyone's assuming it's going to be Hasser.
And we'll be able to ameliorate some of the damage that the Fed does.
But at Treasury, you can actually do things.
And very interesting interview that he did with Breitbart, I think it was, unless I'm getting my interviews confused.
(33:32):
He recently did an interview at the Treasury, and they asked him, what was the most surprising
thing about you?
You found out about the Treasury secretary job.
He said, 40 to 50 percent of what I do is national security.
Now, part of that is tariffs.
But then let's get back to drug money flows and, you know, Venezuela and offshore islands
(33:55):
and so on.
You know, you have somebody in that position who not only can play a role in terms of shaping economic policy to build up the industrial base of the United States again, but you have somebody in that position who actually knows what the enemy's financial operations are and is in a position to carry out financial warfare against it.
(34:17):
Yeah, because you mentioned the Caymans. And this, I think I covered this in my newsletter earlier this year, but it's become more apparent that there's definitely some dark money things going on in the Cayman Islands, particularly, I can bring this back to Scott Besson, as it pertains to treasuries.
There's sort of a black box of treasury holdings within the Caymans, and a lot of people are suspecting that it is just a slush fund for these nefarious activities.
(34:47):
I mean, depending on how you count them, one could argue that the Cayman Islands technically is the largest holder, foreign holder of treasuries in the world, surpassing Japan, the UK and China.
Right. I mean, it could be. And, you know, people have to keep this into account.
You know, we have certain vulnerabilities. I mean, previous administrations, through their insane policies, have left the United States extremely vulnerable. I mean, let's just talk about rare earths. And obviously, there's, I mean, look at what Trump did with China, bought us a year so that we can actually start getting production going on in the United States.
(35:22):
But, you know, you look at the enormous debt of the United States, which is in the hands of other countries. So in a certain sense, to get back to your other question, why don't they just come out and say this? I think they're taking a whole lot of very careful, deliberate steps to put the United States in a position where it can defend itself, where it can begin to extricate itself from this financier system.
(35:48):
But this is not, you know, this is not the kind of thing where you just snap your finger and say, oh, bye bye, city of London.
We're on our own.
And I think this question of U.S. Treasury holdings in other people's hands, you know, is a big aspect of it.
So they have to have all of this in mind as they take each one of these steps.
(36:10):
Yeah.
So that leads to a couple of questions, first of which is who is on board with us?
Obviously, you mentioned Russia.
China, India, conversations happening over there.
If they're acting sovereign, maybe they will play ball in the sense it's like, hey, if you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone.
We'll do some trade intermittent, maybe not even intermittently.
(36:33):
We'll have good trade deals and you take care of the West.
Obviously, the national security memo that went out this morning, real big focus on the Western hemisphere.
We don't want to get into these foreign wars across the world anymore.
we really want to focus on our locality, our geographic locality, and the economies around us.
(36:54):
Who in the Western Hemisphere, in your mind, is excited about this policy positioning?
Well, obviously, we've got Argentina, and the administration is clearly trying to influence
things in Honduras. It's a difficult relationship with Mexico, and with many of these countries in
(37:16):
Central and South America, I think people have to be cognizant of the fact that you have almost
dual power situations, right, where you have the narco-traffico cartels with as much, if not more,
power than the governments. So governments have to take that into account, you know, as they make
(37:36):
their negotiations, which is why I think this whole attack on, you know, what friends of mine
many years ago called Dope Incorporated. This whole attack on the drug trafficking,
the money flows that go with it, the terrorism that comes with it, that's going to be foundational
to creating a situation where sovereign nations can actually act in their own interests.
(38:00):
So I think our hemisphere right now is a work in progress. Of course, we're not going to talk
about Canada because that's in the hands of the central banker, central banker, Mark Carney.
the mark harney and people i'm sure you've seen the documentary by john titus all plenaries but
um basically mark harney in the center of the hsbc zeta cartel money laundering scheme obviously
(38:26):
was the head of the bank of england at one point um yeah the only the only the only foreigner to
ever be head of the bank of england so this man is trusted and the fact that the canadians welcomed
him in with open arms to be their prime minister. Well, not a lot. Not all of them did. And it was
one of those elections with a parliamentary system where you look at the nuances of it. He really is
(38:48):
not that, he doesn't have that much political support. And of course, there's the Western
provinces are not happy. I mean, he's trying to tack in Trump world. So, you know, he's doing
certain concessions in terms of internal flows of energy, which you never had before to try and
keep the Albertans happier, that, you know, they've got some kind of economic development.
(39:12):
But all of this is, I think, just biding time to continue to play his nefarious role,
you know, in that circumstance. But at least he's honest, because when he was at the ASEAN
summit about a month ago, he said, the rules-based liberal free trade order is over.
(39:34):
They know it.
They know Trump has ended it.
And his job is to quietly try and figure out, well, how much can I sabotage it?
Or how can I set up some kind of other operation?
But among the smarter of these guys, or at least the ones that are getting their orders
from the smarters of these guys, they know what they're up against with Trump.
(39:56):
And it'll be always, they always have a two front attack.
You know, the frontal attack, you know, all the political stuff that he's being hit with in terms of the boat strikes, everything else, you know, try and knock out the people he relies on the most, like Hegseth or Tulsi Gabbard or Kash Patel or whatever.
(40:17):
And then you know the quieter okay what are we doing to try and undermine these policies economically and politically in the back room Yeah Well sticking on the narco boats getting taken out I think you had a really good explanation of what the second and third order effects of this are
(40:39):
I think it's important to go over those with the audience who may be looking at this and saying, hey, we're just indiscriminately bombing people in the Atlantic Ocean.
what's going on here. But to your point of doping being a big part of this, there could be a
strategic reason for bombing these boats specifically in terms of the reaction and insights from the
(41:02):
narcos. Yeah. And I was listening to a show the other day and one of the people, a retired general,
Blaine, I'm blocking on his last name, I think it's Holt. He made the point, or maybe it was
Ian Burlingame, I can't remember. But one of them made the point that you look at that carrier group
(41:23):
that's in the Caribbean, the USS Gerald Ford, are they just there for firepower? Or think of the
enormous electronic surveillance that you have. And think of what happens when you bomb one of
those drug boats. You know, the communications lines light up and they're tracking all of this
stuff and putting together a map of how this dope incorporated operation works and tracing
(41:48):
it back to bank accounts and tracing it back to individuals and putting this entire map
together.
So it's like they're hitting at the bottom level of this to illuminate how this thing
operates at the higher and higher levels.
And I think they're dead serious.
And that gets back to Scott Besson saying 40 to 50% of what I do at Treasury is national
(42:10):
security.
Well, that's not just tariffs.
That's this.
Yeah.
And so how do you think, do you think the city of London notices that its back is against
the wall and it's going to lay over?
They're going to continue to do everything they can do.
I mean, this thing around Hegseth and the bombing, I mean, if they could, they will
(42:34):
try and turn this into impeachment territory.
And we've got plenty of weak Republicans.
I don't know that they would ever push it to that point over the next year.
But you can bet the, you know, the key nodal point is the midterm elections.
You know, we have to hold the House and hold the Senate and optimally increase our margins, which is hard in an off-year election.
(43:00):
And even harder, make sure more of those Republicans are actually mega Republicans.
But that, to me, the battle over the next year is going to be that, because I think Trump will be able to continue to move.
Legislatively, it'll be much more glacial than, I mean, we got the big, beautiful bill through and Trump was a genius to put all of it in one bill.
(43:27):
You know, maybe he can embarrass enough of these senators to get rid of the filibuster.
But if he doesn't, I don't think you're going to see a whole lot going on legislatively, you know, except on some of these 80-20 issues where people will just burn their congressmen and their senators butts.
He'll continue to move in terms of executive orders in the presidency.
(43:47):
I think we'll begin to see the effect of some of this economic restructuring.
I think people will start to feel, I mean, if people are paying attention, the price of eggs are down, the price of gas is down.
You know, the price of things that Trump has some control over are actually down.
But people need to see jobs and they need to see, you know, a real change in the standard of living.
(44:10):
So, you know, we're going to be in quite a quite a tense year as we go into the midterm elections.
But I think the big hole card for the city of London and the elites is they want to take this Congress away from Trump.
And if they do that, I don't really know what it will look like, but it won't be good.
(44:33):
Well, to that point, like how critical for ensuring that we live in a free and sovereign country is this next year?
Is it make or break?
I think it's make or break.
I mean, I think this is the equivalent of what Lincoln had to do to win the Civil War.
If we had lost that civil war or if Lincoln himself had not been elected in 1861, we wouldn't be sitting here in a great sovereign republic. We'd be a bunch of squabbling, balkanized states. And I think the next year is absolutely critical.
(45:09):
And, you know, what I do with my shows, what I do with my political organizing is just try and educate the MAGA movement so they understand the nature of this fight.
And not only can back up President Trump, but create much more of a bench in terms of people who are running for office at every level, who think this way, who understand this, so that he's got much more maneuvering room.
(45:34):
And we've got a much better chance of keeping people in the MAGA coalition, not being diverted on all of this nonsense, which is being spun up right now, Tucker versus Candace or whatever, you know, and stay focused on what it is Trump is actually doing so that we have an electorate, which is smart enough to make the right choices come next November.
(45:58):
If you're looking at the polling day, it's not looking great right now.
It never does at this stage of the game.
And I think I think the administration realizes they've got to sharpen the message on the economy.
So Peter Navarro was on Bannon a week and a half ago and Bannon said, you know, did you jump the gun on the Golden Age?
(46:20):
Like, it's not here. You know, it's coming. And and Navarro said, yeah, we got the memo.
And so he's been doing, you know, on his sub stack, he's doing really good educationals in terms of this is where inflation comes from in this sector.
And this is what we're doing. J.D. Vance, I think, is taking the point on a lot of this.
(46:42):
And Trump is going on the road. That's that's the best way you can do it.
You send the man out there to talk directly to the American people about how you actually recreate an actual American economy.
And I think as that kicks in, we'll see the poll numbers get back to something we can work with.
(47:02):
Not that I necessarily trust polls all that much, but there's something out there.
Yeah.
How did you get into this in the first place?
It's a really long story.
I've been political pretty much since I was hatched.
I campaigned for Bobby Kennedy Sr. in 1968, and I was in California when he was shot.
(47:30):
So, you know, I went through the, I saw the devolution of the United States coming out of those assassinations.
And in the early 1970s, I ran into a man named Lyndon LaRouche, who you or some of your viewers may be familiar with,
who was a physical economist and who pretty much saw where all of this was going.
(47:53):
I was very much of a maverick.
He passed away a few years ago, and some of us took a different direction from those who
are still affiliated with his widow, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who for legal reasons, I have
to say, I have nothing to do with.
But, you know, I sort of have lived in the world of being in a maverick organization
all my life.
And then along comes Donald Trump.
(48:15):
So that made it kind of easy.
Well, I guess the last question I ask is, is economics, monetary, fiscal policy. I mean, there's many who believe, I mean, bringing it back to Scott Besson, he had the now infamous fireside chat at the Manhattan Institute, I believe in July of 2024, in which he said, hey, there's a global economic reordering underway.
(48:41):
and I would like to be part of the team that is trying to advise the president on how to navigate this global monetary reordering.
What does the monetary system look at?
There's a lot of talk that the perceived independence of the Fed, which is very hand wavy, is going to be completely demarcated
(49:05):
and that the Treasury is going to take over monetary policy completely.
What are you seeing in terms of the transition we have financially,
particularly how the monetary plumbing works?
Well, yeah, I think Besson just this week said, you know,
we want to basically cut back the mission of the Fed and so on.
(49:29):
I think to the extent that they can do things administratively,
you know, through executive orders and so on, they are going to try and, you know,
reduce the negative impact of the Fed as much as possible. But I think the interesting thing
they're doing, because everybody's looking over here at the Fed, well, let's look over here
(49:49):
at the alternate lines of financial flows that they're setting up. You know, when Trump first
came in, he did put out an EO saying, let's look at a sovereign wealth fund. I think what they've
done is rather than one single new institution, first of all, they've got 18 to 20 trillion dollars
(50:11):
of foreign investment coming into the United States, which is going to be directly channeled
into productive investment, into steel plants, into shipbuilding, into nuclear power. A lot of
it will go into AI, but that means a lot of it needs to go into power generation and other things.
So it's sort of like they're just creating an alternative to the Fed. And there's institutions inside various departments, which are kind of like little reconstruction finance corporations, especially in energy and others, where they can again begin to channel credit into the real economy.
(50:47):
I think the important thing that they're doing, however far they can move in terms of restructuring things institutionally between the Treasury and the Fed, is just figuring out how do we start getting credit into the productive sector?
And I think what they're doing is absolutely masterful.
(51:08):
And it's not, oh, I'm going to introduce a bill tomorrow morning to get rid of the Fed.
Yeah, you and what Congress is going to do that?
You know, I mean, we're two, three cycles away from a Congress, I think, that would even consider something like that.
Well, let's not wring our hands.
Let's just figure out how do we get done what we need to get done.
And I think as people begin to see, wait a minute, there's a different way to do this.
(51:31):
This may still be over here, but over here, some really good stuff is happening.
You begin to lay the political basis for perhaps ultimately getting rid of the Federal Reserve.
But again, from where I sit politically, we're election cycles away from having an election
cycle to do something like that.
It's like people who say, well, get out of NATO.
(51:52):
Yeah, well, you and what Congress?
Congress has to approve that.
So give this administration credit for doing what they're doing, recognizing that there
are certain things legislatively or institutionally they may not be able to do immediately.
And so just take the ground that you can while it's there.
And there's a lot of it. There's a lot of it when you actually want to do what Trump wants to do, which is reshore manufacturing, create real jobs and stop the wars. There's a lot he can do without turning the switch off on either the Fed or NATO.
(52:26):
Mm hmm. Susan, this has been incredibly insightful. Thank you for your time. Before we leave,
is there anything we didn't touch on that you think is pressing? Any final notes?
Well, I would just say to your viewers, you know, what I said is this question of the midterms,
and it's really critical that people are informed, are active, are smart,
(52:52):
are engaged as much as they possibly can with one single mission, which is we have to defend
Donald Trump, whatever form that takes. And in some cases, it may just be, we just have to get
the Republican elected, whether he's good, bad, or indifferent. In other cases, it's going to be,
we're going to get a really good candidate. You know, this is, you know, this is battlefront
(53:16):
decisions that people are going to have to make, but people have to be engaged politically and not
just sitting there doom scrolling the latest social media scandal. Doom scrolling is very
popular these days. It's very popular. It's bad for your... And we have an antidote for doom
scrolling at prometheanaction.com. So I encourage people to head over there and see what we have to
(53:39):
offer. We will link to that in the show notes. Again, Susan, thank you for your time. Thank you
for your work. And hopefully we can do this at some point again in the future. Sure. Hope so too.
All right.
Peace.
Love freaks.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.