July 23, 2025 • 60 mins
Malcolm Nance welcomes Anthony Scaramucci, former White House Communications Director, to Black Man Spy.
The pair discuss the impact of the Big Beautiful Bill, Putin's influence on Trump, China's global economic strategy, Elon Musk's third party and the need for a rational middle in politics.
If you liked this episode, leave a rating on Apple Podcasts or share it with a friend!
Click the link below to subscribe to our Newsletter:
https://malcolmnance.substack.com/
The pair discuss the impact of the Big Beautiful Bill, Putin's influence on Trump, China's global economic strategy, Elon Musk's third party and the need for a rational middle in politics.
If you liked this episode, leave a rating on Apple Podcasts or share it with a friend!
Click the link below to subscribe to our Newsletter:
https://malcolmnance.substack.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Malcolm thirty eight percent approval rating for the Big Beautiful
Spending Bill. They passed it anyway, they know they're gonna
get re elected. Malcolm fourteen percent approval rating for the Congress,
slightly above Kim el Jung, the North Korean dictator for
the Congress, but no problem. Ninety five percent of the
incumbents get re elected anyway, So it is no longer
(00:23):
public service. It has become public self service. I'm going
I'm gonna rake it over the calls for myself and
my family. I'm gonna funnel money into my account through
insider trading. I'm gonna get with the Trumps on their
mean coins. The Big Beautiful Spending Bill. Great for big businesses,
great for rich people, really shitty for the working poor,
(00:46):
and really shitty for the working class people. But that's okay.
We don't need those people, so we're gonna vote this
in anyway. So Musk, whatever you think of Musk, at
least he's calling that out.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
This is black Man Spy.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Hi, I'm Malcolm nance and welcome to black Man's Spy.
This week, we have an exciting episode with a good guy,
a guy I know, the mooch, Anthony Scaramucci, my guest.
He is founder and managing partner at Skybridge, a global
alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of Salt, a
(01:30):
global thought leadership forum in Venture Studio. He served on
President Donald J. Trump sixteen person Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee,
and in twenty seventeen briefly served as Chief Strategy Officer
of the Export Import Bank and White House Communications Director.
He co hosts the podcast The Rest Is Politics Us
(01:53):
with Kaddi Ka. Anthony Scaramucci is going to be a
great guess, so let's welcome him.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
A black Man's.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Spy, Anthony Scaramucci, Welcome, Welcome.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
I am so glad to see you look great, you.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Malcolm, but you know, you know it's probably not appropriate
for this podcast, so you can cut it out. But
you know, black don't crack. But you know what beas,
don't age, Malcolm. Don't you forget that.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Okay, Hey, listen, it was I figured the.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Way you tied, I figured the way you titled the podcast.
I could get I could get right there.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
You know you can take you right there. I think
you and I.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
I think you and I look great for a combined
age of one hundred and thirty.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Uh, well, you know I have to always park by
combined it it is actually close tough. I always harked
back to one of my favorite quotes from the Romans, which,
by the way, you know I lived in Sicily.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Uh for a while.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
We have a base there in Sicily, so I speak Italian.
I almost married a woman from Treviso in the north.
It was very funny, and the Italians at the time
of the room said, the darkness in the sweeter the Jews.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
So listen, I see Italy, I see my fellow. My
former homeland is off the coast of Africa. That's how
I describe Italy.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Well, you're very secular man.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
It's a real honor to be on with you.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Carthaginians had to get there somehow. So with that, let's
go into the serious discussion. Because the last four podcasts
that I've done, we were almost I started with Michael Steele,
which was lots of.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Fun and laughs. In the last three of Descendant into Tears.
But let's hope this goes another direction. We can keep
it light.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
But because you are a specialist in economics, and you
worked in the White House and within the government as
an advisor.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
I want to talk about tariffs.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
One thing that I try to explain to people within
the context of this podcast is that, you know, espionage, intelligence, collection,
and war is not limited to the number of tanks.
It's not just limited to the numbers or airplanes. All
of these have an economic factor.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
You have to produce raw materials, you have to move
them by train or by bulkship, you have to put
them into factories. The factories have to have manpower. That
manpower has to get paid. That pay goes out into
the general proadercy economy, and that shows the strength or
the weakness of a nation, depending on whether they're spending
it on social programs or whether they're spending it on
(04:24):
tanks or you know, living like the Scandinavians right where
their social programs give them actual cultural strength.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Which makes people want to invest in them more.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
All of this being said, the United States now under
President Donald Trump, is going a completely different direction economically
with his emphasis on tariffs as an income generating source.
Does he really believe first, does he really know that
(04:56):
what a tariff is or is he being and understanding
that it is a tax on the American public and.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
He just doesn't care what the source of income is.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You know, I think he sees it as again, you know,
I think he's a malevolent guy. I think he's a
really bad guy. I'm going to play him for a second, okay,
so that you see how he sees it, and then
I can tell you why it's erroneous the way he
sees it. But I think the way he sees it
is that the tariff will be put in place, some
(05:35):
of it will be absorbed by the manufacturer, and then yes,
the end user will end up paying some of it.
And so he's cut taxes in some ways, and he's
raised taxes and others. But the economic fallacy of what
I'm saying is that these are ridiculously regressive things to do.
(05:55):
So if you want to hurt the working poor, you
want to hurt the lower middle income people, inspire inflation
through the big beautiful spending bill. If you want to
hurt those people, have tariffs. As they'll go by me,
go by Chairman Powell, we will tell you that the
tariffs are inflation area and they will cause real hardship,
(06:18):
economic hardship to these people. So the great irony of
what Trump is doing is there's always Malcolm a kernel
if truth in what he's doing, and this is what
snags people. But then the ultimate policy is usually an abomination.
So let's just talk about the kernel of truth. I
think we all know this, but it bears repeating. We
(06:42):
lopsided our trading deals after the end of the Second
World War. We did that intentionally. We had general agreement
to trade in tariffs allowed for goods and services to
flow freely into the US, unfettered, unprotected. We accepted forms
of protectionism from around the world to allow for these
acco I means to grow their middle class, to protect
themselves because we needed stronger middle class economies in the
(07:08):
West that was devastated by the word to protect those
Western democracies against the likes of a Joe Stalin, etc.
So we did that, and I think the kernel of
truth where Trump is. Could there have been some surgical
adjustments made to the trade system. We converted the trade
(07:28):
system from GAT to the World Trade Organization. We let
China in effectively as an emerging company. Excuse me, we
let China in effectively as an emerging country. And could
there have been exactly could there have been opportunities to
surgically correct that. So a guy like Robert Leideiser would
say yes to that. Trump said, well, you can't come
(07:50):
back into this administration because I don't want to use
the scalpel this time. I want to use a iron
fisted cudgel. And so he's running around verse five months
of chaos, disrupted the US economy, slowed down growth, slowed
down growth in other European nations. But also on the margin,
(08:11):
international capital is flowing slightly. It's not gigantic yet, but
it's flowing away from the United States. Look at the
rise in the docks, look at the rise in the
foot seat. And so what he's doing is he's sowing
seeds of doubt. He's putting stress on the rule of law,
he's putting stress on the financial system. And then this big,
(08:32):
beautiful bill. He's giving seven thousand dollars break if you will,
to people making north of a million dollars a year,
and he's taking seven hundred dollars worth of benefits from
people making approximately fifty thousand dollars a lesson. And Malcolm,
I'll finish with this one thought. Here is the hypocritical
irony of the bill. They are cutting people off the
(08:56):
Medicaid roll, seventeen million of them. They're also hurting people
taking them off of Obamacare. But you know, and I
know if you get sick Ronald Reagan signed the legislation
in nineteen eighty six. If you or I got sick
and walked into any of the nation's hospitals in the
emergency room, they have a fiduciary and ethical responsibility to
(09:17):
care for us. And guess what if we can't pay
the bill, the bill is going to get absorbed into
their bill. So two things are going on. Trump's team
funded all these rural hospitals because they would effectively go
out of business. And then, of course the insurance rates
for people that are paying the insurance are going to
go through the roof as a result of this. In balance,
(09:39):
it's just really bad capital allocation ideas from the administration
and very bad for lower and middle income people. Regressive, frankly,
but I guess they're in the search of creating a
few trillionaires as opposed to serving the broader general public.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Well, we've seen this act before. I mean, this is
in my reading of it. He just views everyone who
is not really rich like him as the contractors below him,
and he doesn't care if he shorts them.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
He doesn't care.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
That if he doesn't pay them or makes them take
ten percent of what the contracted overall payment amount is.
And I think he doesn't know and or care what
happens to the base worker, because that's those guys problem.
They've got enough money to buy a boat and have
a second house. And I think that with the detachment
(10:33):
from American society, his version of attachment. And this is
where you know, I speak with Michael Cohen about this.
You know, left Parnas every week. He's very good at
understanding where the base Walmart shopper is because of his
education at Worldwide Wrestling. Right, he saw the things that
(10:55):
excited them, which brought up their passions.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
The things that would make them infuse.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
And he also saw that he only wanted one part
of the electorate.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
He wanted the white male electorate.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Lower class middle class, to bring them on board by
mobilizing a nation, the nation against all others. But he
also understood that phrase by Lyndon Johnson, Right, if you
can tell the lowest white man that he is better
than the richest and most educated black man, he won't
(11:28):
just give you a donation, He'll turn out his pockets
for you. I think this is all subconscious with him.
It's all about where he thinks money in capital should be.
And so long as those stair steps of his supporters
are there and existent and he can excite them, he
doesn't care what the actual impacts are downstream, you know,
(11:51):
with regards to the hospitals, unless somebody who's investing in
hospitals comes up and, you know, says, hey, I need
to make a trillion dollars, you know, like you know,
what's his name, Rick Scott from Florida right comes up
and says, hey, you won't get my vote unless we
get more ability for me to consolidate those hospitals that
are going under and create a hospital monopoly.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Who knows.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
So that being said, you know a lot of the
decisions that he makes, although they are based on excitement.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
I've had to do.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Economic intelligence in my career on some of our third
world potentates. Sometimes we just didn't have enough people who
could speak Arabic in some of these places, and they
would say, hey, could you translate this stuff? And you
see these you know, these deals that were related to
you know, financial abuse, fraud, bribery. We had people who
were assigned to the FBI at one time, who had
(12:45):
to be brought from the military to be assigned to
the FBI doing these massive Third world dictator bribery cases,
you know, without revealing anything. These people understood the global
flow of money and where their bucket they could throw
into that flow of money could reap them billions without
(13:07):
being seen. So some of the decisions that Donald Trump
has made, to people who are professionals like myself and
to the average schmo, is there market manipulation going on here?
Because it's not just the congress people who were suddenly,
you know, divesting in hospitals, or like one congressman twenty
(13:29):
four hours before that vote, got rid of every share
of his you know, of his investment in rural hospitals,
knowing that they would drop off immediately, you know, or
other people investing in defense stocks when certain you know,
like when Lockheed Martin announces the F twenty forty seven aircraft.
That's minor stuff, right, that's just insider trading. But we're talking,
(13:54):
I'm talking market manipulation. Did he consciously make decisions about
the tariffs, let them reach a point and then make
statements with the consciousness that it was going to make
billions upon billions upon billions of dollars. Who either shorted
it or would invest in it, or who would keep
the faith with him?
Speaker 2 (14:13):
What do you think, well, I.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Mean it would be hard to keep the faith with him.
I mean he's basically told you. It's basically told you.
You know, he's going to make money off the presidency.
He's made three plus billion dollars in the last five months,
hundreds of millions of dollars off of the mean coin activity,
the crypto activities, other things he's doing. He's selling cologne.
(14:37):
I think the subtext title of the cologne is Beta
Mail by Donald Trumps. He's I don't know, he's selling
anything that isn't nailed down, watches, bibles. So no, I
mean he's decided that he's a huckster. He's a huckster
in chief. I think that it's irrefutable that there's market
(14:58):
manipulation going on. It's bold face market manipulation. He puts
the tariffs on twenty four hours before the markets go down.
He puts a pause on the tariffs, but twenty four
hours before he says that the markets go up and
so yeah, I'm very confident that they're doing all of
those things. So I guess the real question is where
(15:18):
is the I don't know, are there any guardians? Is
there any anybody?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
You know? I think we I.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Think if I could give a phone call to the
not so distant past two hundred and fifty years ago,
you just give a phone call and say, guys, you
may want to add a few clauses. If we could
we get a complete malevolent person who lacks any ethics
or moral character in the position because you're making some
(15:49):
assumptions about honor with this position, you're overly focused on
George Washington. But you know, we've gone from George Washington
to Donald J. Trump and in fifty years and who
knows where we're going from here. Maybe we'll go back
to something more honorable, or maybe it'll be even worse
than Trump. My thing about Trump is that you get
(16:15):
everything with him. You could get a few good ideas
with him, but then you get an avalanche of really
bad ideas. And when somebody said to me once, oh,
that guy is not going to get a job, and
I said, why is that? Well, character is destiny, I'm like, well,
is it though. I mean with the President of the
United States has thirty four criminal indictments, He's been accused
(16:36):
of all different things sexually, hangs out with Jeff Epstein.
He's sending birthday card greetings and letters to sexual predators.
I mean, is character of destiny.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Or what?
Speaker 1 (16:50):
And again, Malcolm, I think you've heard me say this.
The best thing that Donald Trump has going for with
the Democrats, they post up two terrible candidates against them.
They they take out Joe Biden at the last minute.
You know, we're a year away from when they kicked
Joe Biden one year ago. They chick they kicked Joe
(17:13):
Biden to the curb, and then they brought in Harris
without a primary. So the Democrats are supposed to be
for the democracy, Malcolm, But they told Joe Biden in
twenty sixteen, can't run against Hillary, and then told Bernie Sanders,
you know you're doing too good of a job against Hillary.
Take a powder to the point where Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
(17:34):
I don't know if you remember this, she was fired
on the eve of the twenty sixteen Democratic invention for
the manipulation of getting Hillary into position. So the democracy
is no good for the Democrats only in name only.
In twenty sixteen, they then get Biden, who's a good candidate.
He beats the incumbent president. But his sunsetting. You know,
(17:57):
it was like we were choosing between a stable grandfather
and a crazy uncle. But the stable grandfather started sunsetting.
They lied to everybody. They could have said, hey, we
got to do a primary. We got to ask Pysident
Biden to leave the race in September of twenty three.
They don't do this. So now you got Trump. And
(18:18):
guess what we know Trump I said to people when
I started with him, I gave him the benefit of
the doubt every step of the way. It's an august position,
the institution of the presidency. I'm a lifelong Republican. I'm
going to try to help this man. I submit to
everybody listening. You get close to this guy. You know
(18:40):
he's a horrific person.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
You just know it.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
You can ask Michael Gohing, you can ask Elon Musk,
you can ask General Kelly hr McMaster. You pick the person.
Anybody that gets inside of his electron orbit, in the
first orbit around his nucleus, it's like, Wow, that's a
really malevolent, really bad person. You know, He's had criminal
defense attorneys that have called me and said, I've defended murderers,
(19:06):
but this guy's five guys worse.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Than the murderers.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Ok So you tell me, Okay, you tell me so.
Of course they're manipulating the markets. Of course they're drifting
off the market. Of course you're an intelligence guy. Can
I throw a question back to you, sure, what does
Vladimir Putin have on it?
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Well, four books later that I've written about this subject,
I will give you a very honest answer, because I
wrote about this in my book, the first, the Plot
to Hack America, which came out six weeks before the
twenty sixteen election. It was just so obvious these things
and when you do a scrub on it, and I
(19:50):
learned by the time I wrote my third book, Plot
to Betray America. I went to Putin's office in Dresden
when he was a baby spot.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
He was a low KGB junior colonel.
Speaker 4 (20:02):
A very nice office building that they wasn't an office building,
it was a It was an NGO from the nineteen thirties,
and it was in this luxurious neighborhood in which you know,
the great composer Schumann had a mansion and every room
in there had the windowsills taken out and had microphones
(20:27):
put in them, so no matter where you were in
the building, your peers, if they were assigned to, could
monitor you. Who thrived in this environment. There were two
things that they said that he really loved. One, he
loved the art of human manipulation. He was a perfect
human inteligence officer. He would find you, manipulate you.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Two he loved the East Yerman centralized sort of Nazi
like communism that he had there, because people would always
obey the chain of command. They wouldn't step outside the
chain of command, whereas in communism the entire system was
a lack of things, so everyone was always cheating the
(21:08):
chain of command.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
His peers in his office there.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Including a KGB general, all they wanted to do was
stay in East Germany during beer and eat sausage. Right
Vladimir Putin didn't. Right up to the day that the
Iron Curtain fell. He was flipping people as in despised.
When he left and went to Saint Petersburg, he learned
that by the Soviet Union was collapsing. He liquid dated
(21:34):
the city of Saint Petersburg and got the Russian mafia
under his control. Now this is instructive because Putin realized
the old system was unsustainable, but.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Capitalism and money could make you.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Really control people far better than fear right.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
And I often give this little lecture. There's a place
in Spain that I used to live to.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
It used to be very small, and I used to
live in western Spain. I used to go to it
in eastern Spain.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Every once in a while called Perto Banus.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
I don't know if you've ever heard of this place
near marbea Printo Banus is that was at that time
the place in the coast of Del Soul that that
billionaires parked their yachts. If you didn't have a helo
pad in your yacht, you weren't allowed in, right, And
it was the Saudis were there, and that's when, when
I was a senior sailor in the intelligence community, our
(22:29):
submarine would come up there because it was just you
weren't going to be seen, right, and it's just one
of those yachts, the yacht basins. If you didn't have money,
you weren't going to be seen, and they would drop.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Me off there. I learned that there is a global oligarchy.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
This is money that is higher than passports, money that
is higher.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Than nation states.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
And if you can operate with yeah, and if you
could live within that sphere, you could literally do anything.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
So long as your money was good.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Vladimir Bluten immediately harnessed that money and that's how he
used his espionage the former KGB officers to gain control
of Russia and and the oligarchs.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
But he wanted a top down German style organization.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
When Donald Trump popped up in twenty twelve or twenty
thirteen at Miss Universe, there had already been files on him.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Since nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Nineteen seventy seven is when Czech intelligence started doing surveillance
on Ivana Trump, and the reporting officer to Check Intelligence
was Ivana's father. And the best part is check TV
two in that country has all the physical files on
Donald Trump. And the Guardian wrote a great extensive reporting
(23:54):
about this Luke Harding.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
But then Trump went to the Soviet Union in nineteen
eighty eight.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
When he popped up in twenty thirteen and had made
indications in twenty twelve he wanted to run for president,
Vladimir Putin had to have had wheel barrows, real barrows
of that intelligence collection body. Because Putin's like me, right,
it'd be like making me president. I don't want to
know about the economy. I don't want to know about
anything that could wait till after lunch. I want to
(24:21):
know every spy operation going on in the world today,
right now, right, That's what I would say. This is
what Putin did with Trump, and what Putin has done
ever since that time, is he brought a ecosystem of
information around Trump by literally creating a reality around him
in which the promise of global oligarchy money. Starting with
(24:44):
all this Putin controlled Russian oligarchs and hot Russian chicks
could be his.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
He could have a Trump Tower in Moscow. Trump. Here's
where I think Trump's naive.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
He thought he could buy an ex Ay GB officer
off with the promise of a two story penthouse at
the top of Trump Tower Moscow. That guy may have
a quarter of a trillion dollars of illicit funds.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
Vladimir Booby. He maybe one of the richest men in
the world.
Speaker 5 (25:14):
So Putin understands Trump's Trump as a as a as
a recruitable character, not as an actual spy he doesn't
care about nuclear codes.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
Power is making that guy do what you want him
to do. Now, Trump wants to wants to completely withdraw
all sanctions and create this new partnership with Russia.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
So money is what makes the world go.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Around, Malcolm, What would be the recourse if Trump changed
course and became more like a Western leader towards putin?
What would they do to them? They'd expose sex stages,
they would expose the money laundering. What would they do
to they?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
Certainly they have reams on them. I mean, you know
any kind you know, we have a saying. When I
taught at the Survival Evasion Resistance Escape School, the school
where we teach you how to behave in captivity, including
going into hostile countries, we had spies that would come
and train about what do you do if the cops
pick you up? Contact with the enemy is a trick.
(26:13):
Everyone is an enemy until you're in.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
The physical United States. As simple as that.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
They every moment he was there, every conversation he's ever had,
every time you know, you know he had sex, all
recorded without any question. Miss Universe twenty thirteen is a gap.
We don't know did he walk through the rooms with
naked chicks. This you know, you don't know, but he
prays food into the high heavens in twenty fourteen, to
(26:43):
the point that Putin created the Internet Research Agency to
manipulates us opinion for him.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
But all of this being.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
Said, I want to get jump back onto economics because
this is tied into the global oligarchy. China is a
stand out example of a nation that is communist controlled
but with a capitalist infrastructure now which has now given
you know, gives them a centralized economic power, and that
(27:16):
they are now unfortunately ridiculously the adults in the room
in the global economic market. I saw, you know, I
knew some things were up with China when I was
living in Abu Dhabi.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
I lived in Abu Dhabi for ten years.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
My late wife was a mega project's landscape architect. She
have billions of dollars in projects she was doing. And
then I suddenly saw her fifty thousand Pakistani workers start
transitioning to where ten thousand Chinese workers would come in.
They would live in a compound by themselves. You never
saw them out in town. They never left that compound.
(27:52):
They were doing construction work on secret projects for the
shape Westerners were barely allowed in, and then things would
magically appear in those ten thousand Chinese workers would disappear,
and I just thought, well, there's something at play in
the world here I hadn't seen. Then I started seeing
China all over Sub Saharan Africa and realized they were
(28:12):
buying Africa, they were trading in countries. We have decided,
apparently with Donald Trump, to surrender the world.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
To China and to only focus on coal.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
To you know, I understand now China will produce every
month more energy from solar and wind than we will
produce in the next year, and China will be able
to win the global power war that that will power
services and you know, global communications things like that in
(28:48):
the future. So if all of this is Donald Trump's
grand plan, to let me put it this way, to
create a white supremacist because to me, in America, based
only on white Walmart shoppers.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Well imagining, none of that stuff's made in China. Where
is his mind? Is it just that he.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
Is aduled, or does he have dementia, or or does
he not care what's happening to the global markets because
he doesn't believe in them.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
He only believes in the power of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Yeah, I think it's it's the latter. He believes in
the power of Donald Trump. He believes in the markets
being geared towards the US. He's you know, the the
if you if you ever get Professor Rogoff on your podcast,
Ken Rogoff, he writes about the current dollar calamity. He says,
(29:45):
the title of the book is our dollar, your problem.
But we right now have dollar supremacy. That's helped us.
It's given us a laxity in our interest rate mechanisms,
and it's it's also brought some hardship on the rest
of the world while protecting us. But the continuation of
this strategy is going to eventually lead to a debt crisis.
(30:06):
And so Trump is sitting there circa nineteen seventy two.
I always picked that year because that was the peak
ratings year for Archie Bunker in all of the family.
And so he sees the world through that Archie Bunker prism,
which is basically white supremacists. Americans are in control. We
can flex on other people militarily or economically, and so
(30:29):
those people should then therefore pay for the privilege to
enter our markets. They should pay taxes and duties and
user fees to enter our markets. And what you're saying
about China is true. Now, I'm a realist on China.
They have a longer term plan than we do. They
(30:49):
have some very smart policy advisors in place. But they
have one thing going against them, and that is the
Communist Party has been very restrictive in terms of human rights.
It's almost impossible. And give this example, Malcolm, it's almost
impossible to have an internationally recognized Chinese celebrity. There's no
(31:12):
tailor swift of China. There are a lot of internationally
recognized French, German and British celebrities, but not China because
the restrictions are such. If they get an actress that's
doing very well, they end up sequestering her and reminding
her that she has certain obligations to the Communist Party
or business leader jack Ma, They're like, oh, you're becoming
(31:35):
too a little bit too well known. We got to
clip your wings and pull you down. So this makes
it hard for China to export its culture and have
it accepted. If you and I were getting old, you
and me, if we drove around in a car in
the Middle East, it was in the eighties it was
Madonna and American music right still buy and large that
(31:58):
And so the great irony of what I'm saying is
we're squandering all of this. We had this position in
the world where our soft power was quite perceived to
be quite beneficial. Our soft power was perceived as a
helping hand to the rest of the world, which helped
us in so many different ways on the margin as
(32:19):
it related to our economy and capital allocation. But the Chinese,
they can give you the money. But the rhetorical question
I always say to people, do you want to live
in China? China's given a lot of money to Africa.
Rah rah, we love the Chinese money in Africa. Do
you yourself want to live in China. Well, the universal
(32:40):
answer to that is usually no. When the Americans were
given the money, it had this multiplication effect on it.
When the Chinese were giving them money, it's a little
bit of a de multiplier effect for them. So it's
something that people have to consider. And I say this
to you because in your podcast, to me this show,
(33:01):
it represents hope. Because you're an American. You believe in
the system, you believe in the flexibility of the system,
the neural plasticicity of the system, and the adaptive change
in the system. So the hope is that we can
wait out Trump. The hope is, when you really look
at the numbers, the people that support Trump have generally
(33:25):
been in the minority. If you put up a phenomenal candidate,
an articular candidate, somebody wise with wisdom, a unifying candidate
with a soaring message about vision for the United States
and what we can do in terms of technology, human rights,
social progress, handling the debt crisis, if you put that
(33:47):
candidate up, they would beat this rhetorical, populous nonsense. But
in the two elections that Donald Trump, he said three elections,
they put up a one generic elderly white man that
beat him. And the other two elections they put up
two women, both experienced, both very bright. I'm not knocking them,
(34:12):
but they just didn't have the gravitas and in Hillary's place,
were being honest. She didn't have the work ethic, and
in com and Vice President Harris and Secretary State Clinton
and Vice President Harris's case, she didn't want to take
any risk. She's not coming on Malcolm Nance's podcast. She's
not going on Joe Rogan she's not going on THEO
(34:33):
Vaughan's podcast, not going to do it. You know, She'll
go to controlled environments to say control things, okay, but
that's not going to get elected, you see. You know,
and I know this was once a hiring decision for
the American people. It's not that anymore. This is a
popularity contest. So we're gonna need to find a galvanizing
(34:54):
leader I can talk to identify with the American people,
talk to white working class people, but also black and
brown people. Malcolm got to be able to do both.
And you gotta be You got to be able to hate.
You don't want America to go in this Handmaid's Tale direction.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Right, And and that brings me to my next question.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
As we're as we're winding down, So I understand that
you are working with the New American.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Party that Elon Musk has proposed. So tell us about that,
because to me, I don't look.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
This could be I always use this analysis, right, because
people who come back and that say, oh, you're a Democrat,
actually was Republican most of my life, right, first person
I were voted for was Ronald Reagan, and it was
the whole new gingrich you know, uh, you know stained
dressed thing.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
That blew it for me.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Because hey, I was in the navy, right, so you know,
is this stuff illegal now?
Speaker 2 (35:57):
All the impeachment of Clinton and everything like that.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
And I also was from the Colum Powell School of
National Security, which is national security strong, you.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Know, and conservative and socially liberal. Right.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
Guy grew up in New York. First language like me,
he ever learned was Yiddish. That's first language I ever learned.
So that being said, we have this two party system.
Elon must appears to be on the outs with Donald Trump.
He has his own worldview.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
I know. He is a believer.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
In some of the philosophies of Curtis Jarvin, this dark
Enlightenment theory, which to me, I've said this actually on
air Curtis Jarvin. For those of you who haven't seen
or heard of Curtis Jarvin, I recommend you go to
the New York Times watched their forty five minute interview
on Curtis Jarvin.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
A man who is a philosopher.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
You know, he's a tech bro philosopher from Silicon Valley
who does not believe in democracy, believes in techno monarchy,
and you know, pretty much has some crazy things to say,
but there are people who are now listening to him.
Peter Thiel, David Sachs, you know, Mark Andresen, the Big
four South Africans that that pretty much runs Silicon Valley.
(37:15):
But what is it you think Elon Musk can bring
to the to the table.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Is he deliberately acting as a spoiler?
Speaker 3 (37:23):
Is he decided the Republican Party needs to split from
MAGA into something else and hopefully that he'll gain popularity
with the eighty million people that didn't vote.
Speaker 2 (37:34):
What is it?
Speaker 1 (37:36):
Well, in fairness, because it may have been misreported, I'm
not yet working with Musk. I am working. I am
working with Andrew Yang on the Forward Party.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
Forward Party.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Yeah, and there's a proposal that Andrew has put together
to Elon for the American Party. And what I would
say to you is an I think that I think
if Elon, because of all those things that you just said,
if Elon really wants a centrist party to take hold,
you and I both know how hard that would be
in the United States because of this very strong duopoly
(38:13):
of these demo publicans that they've put in place. It's
gonna be very hard to break in you're gonna need
tens of billions of dollars to do it.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
But the thought.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
Exactly so, the thought would be put up ten or
fifteen billion dollars with you and your friends. I think
Larry Ellison would likely be involved. And then here is
a decentralized idea to make it stick because I don't
think Let's say you and I were worth one hundred
billion dollars each, and you and I wanted to start
(38:46):
the Malcolm and Anthony Party, and we're gonna put up
ten each. And now it's called the Malcolm and Anthony Party.
We're not gonna get any traction. You need to.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Put up the money.
Speaker 1 (38:59):
It's almost like bitcoin. I'm Malcolm, you got to you
got to decentralize it, and you've got to put up
the money and step back from it and allow other
people to organize around it under the principles of centrism,
in under the principles of making the society fair enough
about left or right policy ideas, but more about what's
(39:21):
right or wrong for the society. So mus if Musk says, hey,
I'm going full Curtis Jarvin and we're going into dark Enlightenment.
It's is not going to stick. It's not gonna happen.
But if Musk says, okay, listen, your eight districts that
are purplish, i am going to put a purple person
in those eight districts and I'm going to help them
(39:42):
win those eight districts, which will totally destroy the current
nonsense that's going on in Washington because it would force
both sides into a more reminiscent. You mentioned Nuke, Gindrid,
you mentioned Bill Clinton didn't like each other, but you
know what, they were forced to make a lot of
(40:03):
compromises for each other and they got a budget balanced.
The last budget that was balanced was a Gindrich Bill
Clinton budget. That was the year two thousand, two hundred
and forty billion dollars. So to me, it's doable. But
by just saying I'm going to be Curtis Jarff.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Sure, this is not.
Speaker 3 (40:26):
We don't have a parliamentary system, right, Those people are
going to have to let's say you win nine seats, right,
and that offsets both parties.
Speaker 2 (40:35):
Someone is going to those nine candidates.
Speaker 3 (40:38):
Are going to have to caucus with one side or
the other in order to elect a speaker, in order
to gain committee seats, or chairmanships.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
So one size of what you could do is you
could be easily setting yourself up to be bought off
by money from one or the others.
Speaker 3 (40:54):
Well, one side, we know Democrats do not have billionaires
the way that we're public can still It's just that's true.
Speaker 1 (41:02):
You could set up a system that could potentially be
even more corrupt. But let's just role play for a second.
Let's say you and I were the elected leaders and
now these guys are trying to elect a speaker, and
you and I say, yeah, okay, we don't like any
of those people. Here's the most moderate person in the House,
and this is the one that we want, So we're
not going to vote. We're not going to allow this
(41:23):
to happen until we get there.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
And you would have to have nine people that are
so rock solid that none of them would ever straight.
Speaker 2 (41:33):
To one side.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
You're you're right, And I'm saying that this is going
to make it very complicated, it's gonna make it very hard.
But I just think the fact that we're talking about
reform and we're talking about the ideas around the current
system not working. Malcolm thirty eight percent approval rating for
the Big beautiful spending bill. They passed it anyway, they
(41:55):
know they're going to get re elected. Malcolm fourteen percent
approval ready for the Congress, slightly above Kim el Jung,
the North Korean dictator for the Congress, but no problem.
Ninety five percent of the incumbents get re elected anyway.
So it is no longer public service. It has become
public self service. I'm going I'm gonna rake it over
(42:18):
the calls for myself and my family. I'm gonna funnel
money into my account through insider trading. I'm gonna get
with the Trumps on their mean coins. We're gonna we're
gonna have a racket here to fly around the world
and meet people and the I'm in the school of
public self service. And you can see it in the
legislative agenda. The big beautiful spending bill. Great for big businesses,
(42:43):
great for rich people, really shitty for the working poor,
and really shitty for the working class people. And but
that's okay. We don't need those people, so we're gonna
vote this in anyway. So Musk, whatever you think of Musk,
at least he's calling that out.
Speaker 3 (43:00):
At least he's say he is calling that out all right,
you know, but again, now my analytical take when I
when people say, oh, well you're a liberal, you're this No, no, no.
If this were Burundi, okay, if this were Brikina Fas though,
which are by the way, both countries have was a
real big internal political problems right now. You know, one
(43:21):
is actually run by a mercenary organ army.
Speaker 2 (43:24):
I would give the same analysis that I'm going to
give right now.
Speaker 3 (43:28):
Okay, one of the two sides is going to have
a balance of power that is disproportionate to the other. Uh,
say what you will about the Democrats. The Democrats are
not rich.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
There are no real rich Democrats.
Speaker 3 (43:41):
Everyone on the Republicans, which I find ironic because when
I was in the military, I was in the Persian Gulf.
I got very bored and I read The Fountainhead by
Anne Rand, which is about the size of you know,
Oxford English Dictionary. But it's really the story is about
internal nepotism destroying a government where everyone gets the fix
(44:02):
right by being helped by their bud and then supposedly
they're rich, smart people all you know, fuck off. The
Colorado or something couldn't quite figure out that part the romance.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
But this system now exists. The ann Ran Fountainhead system
in ways.
Speaker 6 (44:19):
That it has never existed, or maybe hasn't existed since
the nineteen thirty twenties now exists to where you must
be a grifter to get in there.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
How many people from Fox News are working in the administration.
I think the number thirty eight people who are associate
affiliated contributors you know from Fox News are in there.
On the basis of what Donald Trump sees, we have
a Secretary of Defense who is a open white supremacistcurged
(44:51):
the Department of Defense of all contributions of women, blacks, minorities,
others throughout history, including Medal of Honor winner and calling it.
You know, he actually said DEI is dead. In the
Department of Defense. We used to call that teamwork right,
diversity of thought, equality and treatment inside the chain of command,
(45:14):
in the uniform Code of Military Justice.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
And inclusion of all.
Speaker 3 (45:18):
Hands into operations, and that we've strive for that, you know.
But now I've got this government that is run almost
strictly nepotistically. They are in it to make money, and
I suspect that the pendulum will swing the other way.
There will be a president, you know, make crazy president
AOC or something like that. Let's you know, she wouldn't
(45:41):
be my first choice. We will have the power of
a king or queen, whatever it may be, and they
could urge the opposite side of everything they've ever done.
They could literally drag all of these people into court
and have a just department that looks just like Johnald
(46:02):
Trump's Justice Department and have.
Speaker 2 (46:04):
Their own trials.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
I mean, this thing has not been thought out by
the right because it.
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Is a oligarch run.
Speaker 3 (46:12):
We are clearly I wrote in my book Plot to
Destroy Democracy, which was about how Buten was buying right
wing political groups and converting them into these pro Moscow
really oligarch organizations, and that Trump is critical to that.
And I said Trump would convert the United States into
a constitutional autocracy, and whence the constitution is a applied
(46:38):
only to those of his followers and everyone else will
be treated as a vassal. So I suspect that we're
sort of going there, how, you know, I like the
idea of more participation in government. There's eighty percent of
the electorate did not vote, or eighty million people in.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
The electorate did not vote. Almost forty million just.
Speaker 3 (47:00):
Didn't vote at all, because you know, their day to
day lives are harder. They've got kids to do five
ten minutes out of their lives. They don't want to
think about it. They would rather watch WWE, or they'd rather,
you know, watch bugs money or something like that. You know,
last question, how are you going to mobilize them to
support what you do?
Speaker 2 (47:21):
Because what you're described to me is about ninety five.
Speaker 3 (47:25):
Percent of Democrats. They're very purple. They want to help
people on them. They tried to recruit me to come
in as a candidate. I am huge, you know, I
got a huge gun collector, right pro Second Amendment. And
I was asked back when Basil Smichel was director of
the DNC in New York State. He goes, what would
your platform be? And I go, I'm from Philadelphia. I'm
(47:46):
a strict constitutionalist. I'm a gun owner. But I also
understand that for every poor child on the street, that's
where your crime comes from. When you can't feed people,
you can't give people medical I have one hundred percent
on healthcare to the day I died because I retired
from the military.
Speaker 2 (48:03):
Well come the rest of America can't.
Speaker 3 (48:05):
I pretty much come off like Denmark, where I just
came from.
Speaker 2 (48:09):
Oh you know, I look forward to seeing that.
Speaker 3 (48:13):
But you know, if you have any last thoughts on
how we can achieve.
Speaker 1 (48:18):
I think that you represent something that is needed in
our society, and that is the rational middle. And I
see the Democrats differently than you. The Democrats are the
last vestige of hope here, but they've got a hard
left in their party that wants to cancel people. So,
(48:39):
you know, I helped Vice President Harris's team on the
bait print. A couple of my punchlines landed in the debate.
I then went to the spin room in Philadelphia with
other political leaders to help them. In the spin room,
the thought was they wanted me to come on the
campaign plane with her the hard right, I'm sorry, the
(49:01):
hard left, and her party said no. This guy worked
for Donald Trump once, he'd be allowed to do.
Speaker 2 (49:06):
That, so that yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
So I'm just saying, if you really want to help them,
convince them to get people in the tent that they
don't like. You know, Lyndon Johnson would tell you, Malcolm,
let's get everybody in the tent. You know why you
don't like Elon Musk, a very powerful guy. Holds your nose.
Bring him back into the tent. You don't like Anthony Scaramucci.
(49:29):
He once worked for Donald Trump. You didn't like what
he said, what he's working for him? Okay, no problem.
Holds your nose, Bring him back into the tent. Make
the party a pro pro democracy, pro system, pro American party,
and you'll beat the pants off of Trump. But they
fight with each other in a way that weakens them.
Speaker 2 (49:53):
Look.
Speaker 3 (49:53):
I look when the whole Israel invasion of of of
Israel by Hamas hap and I was one of the
few black pro Israel, and I spent forty years working
Middlely Sub Saharan Africa, Middle South Asia intelligence Palestinian terrorist
(50:15):
groups for my first decade, right, I knew all the
players and you know, and I said, oh well, I
come at it from a counter terrorism perspective. You can't
carry out them in each oednocide in southern Israel and
not expect to get your ass kicked.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Because this is what Hamas wanted.
Speaker 3 (50:31):
There is a hard left element in the Democratic Party.
I am a candidate for cutting those people away. I
mean cut away, you know, like you say, defiant, solid middle.
But that middle has shifted Richard Nixon, colinall and Ronald
(50:52):
Reagan on the X Y axis would be lower left corner.
And when you get the and to tell you that truth,
I actually wrote a substack about this where I said
Hamas may have destroyed American American democracy by allowing Trump
to now you know, advocate genocide. Hamas has definitely killed
(51:14):
the Palestinian state.
Speaker 2 (51:15):
There will never be a Palestinian state.
Speaker 3 (51:17):
But we have people in this country who I've said,
straight up, those people are not part of the Democratic Party.
We don't want to hear from them, right, you know.
And they did a good job, I thought the DNC
by not allowing them to speak, not allowing Free Palestine
to hijack. They were nowhere near the convention in Chicago.
They were out in a park three four blocks away,
(51:38):
not being represented.
Speaker 2 (51:40):
And we need You're right, we need to shift hard
to the middle.
Speaker 3 (51:45):
I have some thoughts about who could be a next
presidential candidate that you know that a lot of people
just say, oh, no, we can't have anyone who is military.
You know, we've got to do this, and that we
in the military understand of what hardship is not for ourselves,
but people in foreign countries. I've fed a lot of
(52:05):
kids with my own rations. I've you know, given away
a lot of things too, you know, protected people from
terrorist warlords and all these things. And maybe we do
need that shift to the hard realism of a solid center.
And I am allfore cutting away the crazy left right
(52:26):
Rashida Talib she wants to represent her constituency without backing
the rest of the party. By I've I've said that
on air. Right African Americans who are solidly down the
middle right, a solid forty two million voting block, I'm
having a hard time right now convincing them to come
(52:48):
out and support anything against Trump because, as a lot
of them say, they're exhausted now. They did their job
in the last selection and now they're feeling abused.
Speaker 2 (52:57):
So I wish you luck in chasing that.
Speaker 3 (53:01):
I've had it out with Andrew Yangle on Twitter a
couple of times too, because it's probably in the sky
and and it's fun to discuss. But I'm a hard,
hard grounded realist, right you know the I.
Speaker 2 (53:15):
Like talking to you.
Speaker 1 (53:16):
I like talking to you for that reason. Listen, I
I I see the world with this complexity, and I
still am trying my hardest, you know. You know what, Malcolm,
I'm too short to see the glasses anything other than
half full. When I look at the glass, it looks
full to me.
Speaker 2 (53:32):
You know.
Speaker 1 (53:32):
I gotta I gotta try to stay optimistic and lean
on some hope that we can fix these ills that
we're currently going through.
Speaker 3 (53:40):
Okay, well, thank you so much for coming onto the podcast.
I would look forward to coming onto yours with you
and lovely Ka.
Speaker 1 (53:50):
I would love to talk to you about your books
as well on open books, so that would be awesome.
Speaker 3 (53:54):
Okay, Well, essentially eventually here my memoir has been sitting
in the Pentagon for a year getting cleared. It's a
top secret, you know, it's got all sorts of crazy
stuff in.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
There getting cleared.
Speaker 3 (54:06):
So hopefully my memoir is what will be discussing Thinker
sailor black Man Spy and you can learn some some
fun stories about how the rest of the world sees
us through an espionage perspective. Right now, it ain't pretty,
but you know, it was a good learning curve for
all of us.
Speaker 2 (54:25):
So thank you again. And I'll ask you out there
where you're at come see me.
Speaker 1 (54:30):
You know what, We've had lunch here before come see me.
Speaker 2 (54:32):
I will do all right, take care of me, brother Bell.
That was really a great episode.
Speaker 3 (54:39):
We have just had some of the best guests on
who are bringing into context some of the stressors that
are going on within America right now. That will do
it for this week's Black Man's Spy. But before I go,
as you know, I like to quote poems from Rudyard
(54:59):
Kip and other people from the classic period. I'm a
member of the Kipling Society, which is in England. I
study Rodero Kipling because as an intelligence officer, foreign linguished
specialist and a writer and author, which is RUDYERD.
Speaker 2 (55:16):
Kipling, not just me. I like to take the wisdom.
Speaker 3 (55:22):
That he has for us from the nineteenth century and
transpose it to the twenty first century, especially when things
are low. But this week I have a special quote
that I'd like to give to you which comes from
another poem poet I'm sorry, poet Thomas Babington McCauley, and
(55:42):
this is the story of Brave Horatius at the Gate.
What I'll do is I will read the story and
then I will give it to you the backstory in context.
So with that, I'm going to give you a quote
Horatius at the gate. But the consul's brow was sad,
(56:05):
and the console's speech was low, and darkly looked he
at the wall, and darkly at the foe. Their van
will be upon us before the bridge goes down. And
if they once might win the bridge, what hope to
save the town? That outspoke brave Horatius, the captain of
the Gate, to every man upon this earth.
Speaker 2 (56:26):
Death cometh soon or late?
Speaker 3 (56:28):
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds
for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of
his gods, and for the tender mother who dandled him
to rest, and for the wife who nurses his baby
at her breast, and for the holy maidens who feed
the eternal flame. To save them from the false sextus
(56:51):
that wrought the deed of shame hew down the bridge,
Sir Console, with all the speed ye may I, with
two more to help me, will hold the foe in
play in yon straight path. A thousand may well be
stopped by three. Now who will stand on either hand
and keep the bridge with me? Then outspoke Spurius Lartius,
(57:15):
a Remian. Proud was he lo, I will stand at
thy right hand and keep the bridge with thee. And
outspoke strong Herminius of Titian blood, was he, I will
abide on thy left side and keep the bridge with thee. Horatius,
quoth the consul, as thou sayest, so let it be,
(57:38):
and straight against that great array, fourth went the dauntless three.
The story is about the commander of the gates leading
into Rome as it was being attacked and invaded by
the Etruscans, and Horatius in this poem, along with just
(57:58):
two other men, stood by and held the gate of
Rome against the Etrushcans. And the story, as you can
clearly tell, is about standing up against fierce odds, standing
against where everyone else is run away and scared and
is cowered by the strength of an enemy that comes
(58:22):
and faces you. And all he needed was one on
his right and his left hand, and he had more
than enough bravery to save Rome. Who is our Horatius,
who will stand to your left and to your right,
because you are the captain of the gate in the
(58:43):
defense of American democracy. You are the only person who
will be able to muster someone to stand on your
right and to your left to help save the values
that America has had for two hundred and fifty years,
which are now under threat by a wanna be dictator.
(59:06):
As General Milly said, we don't take an oath to
a king, we don't take an oath to a tyrant,
we don't take an oath to a dictator, and we
definitely don't take an oath to a wanna be dictator.
And like horatious, what better way to go down than
(59:26):
to stand against fearful odds. MAGA does not own America.
We are the people. You are the people. We are America,
and if we stand fast and stand together, we will
all get through this crisis. Well that's it for this
(59:47):
week's Black Man's Spy. Thanks for coming. Be sure to
tune in and subscribe on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, the Black
Man Spy podcast, and Special Intelligence on Substack at Malcolm
Nance dot substack dot com. You can also find me
own Bluesky at Malcolm Nance dot bsky dot social and
(01:00:09):
if you're still around on Twitter, I'm still there at
Malcolm Nance. So thanks again for coming to this episode.
I will see you next week on the Beach
Malcolm thirty eight percent approval rating for the Big Beautiful
Spending Bill. They passed it anyway, they know they're gonna
get re elected. Malcolm fourteen percent approval rating for the Congress,
slightly above Kim el Jung, the North Korean dictator for
the Congress, but no problem. Ninety five percent of the
incumbents get re elected anyway, So it is no longer
(00:23):
public service. It has become public self service. I'm going
I'm gonna rake it over the calls for myself and
my family. I'm gonna funnel money into my account through
insider trading. I'm gonna get with the Trumps on their
mean coins. The Big Beautiful Spending Bill. Great for big businesses,
great for rich people, really shitty for the working poor,
(00:46):
and really shitty for the working class people. But that's okay.
We don't need those people, so we're gonna vote this
in anyway. So Musk, whatever you think of Musk, at
least he's calling that out.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
This is black Man Spy.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Hi, I'm Malcolm nance and welcome to black Man's Spy.
This week, we have an exciting episode with a good guy,
a guy I know, the mooch, Anthony Scaramucci, my guest.
He is founder and managing partner at Skybridge, a global
alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of Salt, a
(01:30):
global thought leadership forum in Venture Studio. He served on
President Donald J. Trump sixteen person Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee,
and in twenty seventeen briefly served as Chief Strategy Officer
of the Export Import Bank and White House Communications Director.
He co hosts the podcast The Rest Is Politics Us
(01:53):
with Kaddi Ka. Anthony Scaramucci is going to be a
great guess, so let's welcome him.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
A black Man's.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Spy, Anthony Scaramucci, Welcome, Welcome.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
I am so glad to see you look great, you.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Malcolm, but you know, you know it's probably not appropriate
for this podcast, so you can cut it out. But
you know, black don't crack. But you know what beas,
don't age, Malcolm. Don't you forget that.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Okay, Hey, listen, it was I figured the.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Way you tied, I figured the way you titled the podcast.
I could get I could get right there.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
You know you can take you right there. I think
you and I.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
I think you and I look great for a combined
age of one hundred and thirty.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Uh, well, you know I have to always park by
combined it it is actually close tough. I always harked
back to one of my favorite quotes from the Romans, which,
by the way, you know I lived in Sicily.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Uh for a while.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
We have a base there in Sicily, so I speak Italian.
I almost married a woman from Treviso in the north.
It was very funny, and the Italians at the time
of the room said, the darkness in the sweeter the Jews.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
So listen, I see Italy, I see my fellow. My
former homeland is off the coast of Africa. That's how
I describe Italy.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Well, you're very secular man.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
It's a real honor to be on with you.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Carthaginians had to get there somehow. So with that, let's
go into the serious discussion. Because the last four podcasts
that I've done, we were almost I started with Michael Steele,
which was lots of.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Fun and laughs. In the last three of Descendant into Tears.
But let's hope this goes another direction. We can keep
it light.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
But because you are a specialist in economics, and you
worked in the White House and within the government as
an advisor.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
I want to talk about tariffs.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
One thing that I try to explain to people within
the context of this podcast is that, you know, espionage, intelligence, collection,
and war is not limited to the number of tanks.
It's not just limited to the numbers or airplanes. All
of these have an economic factor.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
You have to produce raw materials, you have to move
them by train or by bulkship, you have to put
them into factories. The factories have to have manpower. That
manpower has to get paid. That pay goes out into
the general proadercy economy, and that shows the strength or
the weakness of a nation, depending on whether they're spending
it on social programs or whether they're spending it on
(04:24):
tanks or you know, living like the Scandinavians right where
their social programs give them actual cultural strength.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Which makes people want to invest in them more.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
All of this being said, the United States now under
President Donald Trump, is going a completely different direction economically
with his emphasis on tariffs as an income generating source.
Does he really believe first, does he really know that
(04:56):
what a tariff is or is he being and understanding
that it is a tax on the American public and.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
He just doesn't care what the source of income is.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You know, I think he sees it as again, you know,
I think he's a malevolent guy. I think he's a
really bad guy. I'm going to play him for a second, okay,
so that you see how he sees it, and then
I can tell you why it's erroneous the way he
sees it. But I think the way he sees it
is that the tariff will be put in place, some
(05:35):
of it will be absorbed by the manufacturer, and then yes,
the end user will end up paying some of it.
And so he's cut taxes in some ways, and he's
raised taxes and others. But the economic fallacy of what
I'm saying is that these are ridiculously regressive things to do.
(05:55):
So if you want to hurt the working poor, you
want to hurt the lower middle income people, inspire inflation
through the big beautiful spending bill. If you want to
hurt those people, have tariffs. As they'll go by me,
go by Chairman Powell, we will tell you that the
tariffs are inflation area and they will cause real hardship,
(06:18):
economic hardship to these people. So the great irony of
what Trump is doing is there's always Malcolm a kernel
if truth in what he's doing, and this is what
snags people. But then the ultimate policy is usually an abomination.
So let's just talk about the kernel of truth. I
think we all know this, but it bears repeating. We
(06:42):
lopsided our trading deals after the end of the Second
World War. We did that intentionally. We had general agreement
to trade in tariffs allowed for goods and services to
flow freely into the US, unfettered, unprotected. We accepted forms
of protectionism from around the world to allow for these
acco I means to grow their middle class, to protect
themselves because we needed stronger middle class economies in the
(07:08):
West that was devastated by the word to protect those
Western democracies against the likes of a Joe Stalin, etc.
So we did that, and I think the kernel of
truth where Trump is. Could there have been some surgical
adjustments made to the trade system. We converted the trade
(07:28):
system from GAT to the World Trade Organization. We let
China in effectively as an emerging company. Excuse me, we
let China in effectively as an emerging country. And could
there have been exactly could there have been opportunities to
surgically correct that. So a guy like Robert Leideiser would
say yes to that. Trump said, well, you can't come
(07:50):
back into this administration because I don't want to use
the scalpel this time. I want to use a iron
fisted cudgel. And so he's running around verse five months
of chaos, disrupted the US economy, slowed down growth, slowed
down growth in other European nations. But also on the margin,
(08:11):
international capital is flowing slightly. It's not gigantic yet, but
it's flowing away from the United States. Look at the
rise in the docks, look at the rise in the
foot seat. And so what he's doing is he's sowing
seeds of doubt. He's putting stress on the rule of law,
he's putting stress on the financial system. And then this big,
(08:32):
beautiful bill. He's giving seven thousand dollars break if you will,
to people making north of a million dollars a year,
and he's taking seven hundred dollars worth of benefits from
people making approximately fifty thousand dollars a lesson. And Malcolm,
I'll finish with this one thought. Here is the hypocritical
irony of the bill. They are cutting people off the
(08:56):
Medicaid roll, seventeen million of them. They're also hurting people
taking them off of Obamacare. But you know, and I
know if you get sick Ronald Reagan signed the legislation
in nineteen eighty six. If you or I got sick
and walked into any of the nation's hospitals in the
emergency room, they have a fiduciary and ethical responsibility to
(09:17):
care for us. And guess what if we can't pay
the bill, the bill is going to get absorbed into
their bill. So two things are going on. Trump's team
funded all these rural hospitals because they would effectively go
out of business. And then, of course the insurance rates
for people that are paying the insurance are going to
go through the roof as a result of this. In balance,
(09:39):
it's just really bad capital allocation ideas from the administration
and very bad for lower and middle income people. Regressive, frankly,
but I guess they're in the search of creating a
few trillionaires as opposed to serving the broader general public.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Well, we've seen this act before. I mean, this is
in my reading of it. He just views everyone who
is not really rich like him as the contractors below him,
and he doesn't care if he shorts them.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
He doesn't care.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
That if he doesn't pay them or makes them take
ten percent of what the contracted overall payment amount is.
And I think he doesn't know and or care what
happens to the base worker, because that's those guys problem.
They've got enough money to buy a boat and have
a second house. And I think that with the detachment
(10:33):
from American society, his version of attachment. And this is
where you know, I speak with Michael Cohen about this.
You know, left Parnas every week. He's very good at
understanding where the base Walmart shopper is because of his
education at Worldwide Wrestling. Right, he saw the things that
(10:55):
excited them, which brought up their passions.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
The things that would make them infuse.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
And he also saw that he only wanted one part
of the electorate.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
He wanted the white male electorate.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Lower class middle class, to bring them on board by
mobilizing a nation, the nation against all others. But he
also understood that phrase by Lyndon Johnson, Right, if you
can tell the lowest white man that he is better
than the richest and most educated black man, he won't
(11:28):
just give you a donation, He'll turn out his pockets
for you. I think this is all subconscious with him.
It's all about where he thinks money in capital should be.
And so long as those stair steps of his supporters
are there and existent and he can excite them, he
doesn't care what the actual impacts are downstream, you know,
(11:51):
with regards to the hospitals, unless somebody who's investing in
hospitals comes up and, you know, says, hey, I need
to make a trillion dollars, you know, like you know,
what's his name, Rick Scott from Florida right comes up
and says, hey, you won't get my vote unless we
get more ability for me to consolidate those hospitals that
are going under and create a hospital monopoly.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Who knows.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
So that being said, you know a lot of the
decisions that he makes, although they are based on excitement.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
I've had to do.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Economic intelligence in my career on some of our third
world potentates. Sometimes we just didn't have enough people who
could speak Arabic in some of these places, and they
would say, hey, could you translate this stuff? And you
see these you know, these deals that were related to
you know, financial abuse, fraud, bribery. We had people who
were assigned to the FBI at one time, who had
(12:45):
to be brought from the military to be assigned to
the FBI doing these massive Third world dictator bribery cases,
you know, without revealing anything. These people understood the global
flow of money and where their bucket they could throw
into that flow of money could reap them billions without
(13:07):
being seen. So some of the decisions that Donald Trump
has made, to people who are professionals like myself and
to the average schmo, is there market manipulation going on here?
Because it's not just the congress people who were suddenly,
you know, divesting in hospitals, or like one congressman twenty
(13:29):
four hours before that vote, got rid of every share
of his you know, of his investment in rural hospitals,
knowing that they would drop off immediately, you know, or
other people investing in defense stocks when certain you know,
like when Lockheed Martin announces the F twenty forty seven aircraft.
That's minor stuff, right, that's just insider trading. But we're talking,
(13:54):
I'm talking market manipulation. Did he consciously make decisions about
the tariffs, let them reach a point and then make
statements with the consciousness that it was going to make
billions upon billions upon billions of dollars. Who either shorted
it or would invest in it, or who would keep
the faith with him?
Speaker 2 (14:13):
What do you think, well, I.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Mean it would be hard to keep the faith with him.
I mean he's basically told you. It's basically told you.
You know, he's going to make money off the presidency.
He's made three plus billion dollars in the last five months,
hundreds of millions of dollars off of the mean coin activity,
the crypto activities, other things he's doing. He's selling cologne.
(14:37):
I think the subtext title of the cologne is Beta
Mail by Donald Trumps. He's I don't know, he's selling
anything that isn't nailed down, watches, bibles. So no, I
mean he's decided that he's a huckster. He's a huckster
in chief. I think that it's irrefutable that there's market
(14:58):
manipulation going on. It's bold face market manipulation. He puts
the tariffs on twenty four hours before the markets go down.
He puts a pause on the tariffs, but twenty four
hours before he says that the markets go up and
so yeah, I'm very confident that they're doing all of
those things. So I guess the real question is where
(15:18):
is the I don't know, are there any guardians? Is
there any anybody?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
You know? I think we I.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Think if I could give a phone call to the
not so distant past two hundred and fifty years ago,
you just give a phone call and say, guys, you
may want to add a few clauses. If we could
we get a complete malevolent person who lacks any ethics
or moral character in the position because you're making some
(15:49):
assumptions about honor with this position, you're overly focused on
George Washington. But you know, we've gone from George Washington
to Donald J. Trump and in fifty years and who
knows where we're going from here. Maybe we'll go back
to something more honorable, or maybe it'll be even worse
than Trump. My thing about Trump is that you get
(16:15):
everything with him. You could get a few good ideas
with him, but then you get an avalanche of really
bad ideas. And when somebody said to me once, oh,
that guy is not going to get a job, and
I said, why is that? Well, character is destiny, I'm like, well,
is it though. I mean with the President of the
United States has thirty four criminal indictments, He's been accused
(16:36):
of all different things sexually, hangs out with Jeff Epstein.
He's sending birthday card greetings and letters to sexual predators.
I mean, is character of destiny.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Or what?
Speaker 1 (16:50):
And again, Malcolm, I think you've heard me say this.
The best thing that Donald Trump has going for with
the Democrats, they post up two terrible candidates against them.
They they take out Joe Biden at the last minute.
You know, we're a year away from when they kicked
Joe Biden one year ago. They chick they kicked Joe
(17:13):
Biden to the curb, and then they brought in Harris
without a primary. So the Democrats are supposed to be
for the democracy, Malcolm, But they told Joe Biden in
twenty sixteen, can't run against Hillary, and then told Bernie Sanders,
you know you're doing too good of a job against Hillary.
Take a powder to the point where Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
(17:34):
I don't know if you remember this, she was fired
on the eve of the twenty sixteen Democratic invention for
the manipulation of getting Hillary into position. So the democracy
is no good for the Democrats only in name only.
In twenty sixteen, they then get Biden, who's a good candidate.
He beats the incumbent president. But his sunsetting. You know,
(17:57):
it was like we were choosing between a stable grandfather
and a crazy uncle. But the stable grandfather started sunsetting.
They lied to everybody. They could have said, hey, we
got to do a primary. We got to ask Pysident
Biden to leave the race in September of twenty three.
They don't do this. So now you got Trump. And
(18:18):
guess what we know Trump I said to people when
I started with him, I gave him the benefit of
the doubt every step of the way. It's an august position,
the institution of the presidency. I'm a lifelong Republican. I'm
going to try to help this man. I submit to
everybody listening. You get close to this guy. You know
(18:40):
he's a horrific person.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
You just know it.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
You can ask Michael Gohing, you can ask Elon Musk,
you can ask General Kelly hr McMaster. You pick the person.
Anybody that gets inside of his electron orbit, in the
first orbit around his nucleus, it's like, Wow, that's a
really malevolent, really bad person. You know, He's had criminal
defense attorneys that have called me and said, I've defended murderers,
(19:06):
but this guy's five guys worse.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Than the murderers.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Ok So you tell me, Okay, you tell me so.
Of course they're manipulating the markets. Of course they're drifting
off the market. Of course you're an intelligence guy. Can
I throw a question back to you, sure, what does
Vladimir Putin have on it?
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Well, four books later that I've written about this subject,
I will give you a very honest answer, because I
wrote about this in my book, the first, the Plot
to Hack America, which came out six weeks before the
twenty sixteen election. It was just so obvious these things
and when you do a scrub on it, and I
(19:50):
learned by the time I wrote my third book, Plot
to Betray America. I went to Putin's office in Dresden
when he was a baby spot.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
He was a low KGB junior colonel.
Speaker 4 (20:02):
A very nice office building that they wasn't an office building,
it was a It was an NGO from the nineteen thirties,
and it was in this luxurious neighborhood in which you know,
the great composer Schumann had a mansion and every room
in there had the windowsills taken out and had microphones
(20:27):
put in them, so no matter where you were in
the building, your peers, if they were assigned to, could
monitor you. Who thrived in this environment. There were two
things that they said that he really loved. One, he
loved the art of human manipulation. He was a perfect
human inteligence officer. He would find you, manipulate you.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Two he loved the East Yerman centralized sort of Nazi
like communism that he had there, because people would always
obey the chain of command. They wouldn't step outside the
chain of command, whereas in communism the entire system was
a lack of things, so everyone was always cheating the
(21:08):
chain of command.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
His peers in his office there.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Including a KGB general, all they wanted to do was
stay in East Germany during beer and eat sausage. Right
Vladimir Putin didn't. Right up to the day that the
Iron Curtain fell. He was flipping people as in despised.
When he left and went to Saint Petersburg, he learned
that by the Soviet Union was collapsing. He liquid dated
(21:34):
the city of Saint Petersburg and got the Russian mafia
under his control. Now this is instructive because Putin realized
the old system was unsustainable, but.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Capitalism and money could make you.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Really control people far better than fear right.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
And I often give this little lecture. There's a place
in Spain that I used to live to.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
It used to be very small, and I used to
live in western Spain. I used to go to it
in eastern Spain.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Every once in a while called Perto Banus.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
I don't know if you've ever heard of this place
near marbea Printo Banus is that was at that time
the place in the coast of Del Soul that that
billionaires parked their yachts. If you didn't have a helo
pad in your yacht, you weren't allowed in, right, And
it was the Saudis were there, and that's when, when
I was a senior sailor in the intelligence community, our
(22:29):
submarine would come up there because it was just you
weren't going to be seen, right, and it's just one
of those yachts, the yacht basins. If you didn't have money,
you weren't going to be seen, and they would drop.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Me off there. I learned that there is a global oligarchy.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
This is money that is higher than passports, money that
is higher.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Than nation states.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
And if you can operate with yeah, and if you
could live within that sphere, you could literally do anything.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
So long as your money was good.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Vladimir Bluten immediately harnessed that money and that's how he
used his espionage the former KGB officers to gain control
of Russia and and the oligarchs.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
But he wanted a top down German style organization.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
When Donald Trump popped up in twenty twelve or twenty
thirteen at Miss Universe, there had already been files on him.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Since nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Nineteen seventy seven is when Czech intelligence started doing surveillance
on Ivana Trump, and the reporting officer to Check Intelligence
was Ivana's father. And the best part is check TV
two in that country has all the physical files on
Donald Trump. And the Guardian wrote a great extensive reporting
(23:54):
about this Luke Harding.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
But then Trump went to the Soviet Union in nineteen
eighty eight.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
When he popped up in twenty thirteen and had made
indications in twenty twelve he wanted to run for president,
Vladimir Putin had to have had wheel barrows, real barrows
of that intelligence collection body. Because Putin's like me, right,
it'd be like making me president. I don't want to
know about the economy. I don't want to know about
anything that could wait till after lunch. I want to
(24:21):
know every spy operation going on in the world today,
right now, right, That's what I would say. This is
what Putin did with Trump, and what Putin has done
ever since that time, is he brought a ecosystem of
information around Trump by literally creating a reality around him
in which the promise of global oligarchy money. Starting with
(24:44):
all this Putin controlled Russian oligarchs and hot Russian chicks
could be his.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
He could have a Trump Tower in Moscow. Trump. Here's
where I think Trump's naive.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
He thought he could buy an ex Ay GB officer
off with the promise of a two story penthouse at
the top of Trump Tower Moscow. That guy may have
a quarter of a trillion dollars of illicit funds.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
Vladimir Booby. He maybe one of the richest men in
the world.
Speaker 5 (25:14):
So Putin understands Trump's Trump as a as a as
a recruitable character, not as an actual spy he doesn't
care about nuclear codes.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
Power is making that guy do what you want him
to do. Now, Trump wants to wants to completely withdraw
all sanctions and create this new partnership with Russia.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
So money is what makes the world go.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Around, Malcolm, What would be the recourse if Trump changed
course and became more like a Western leader towards putin?
What would they do to them? They'd expose sex stages,
they would expose the money laundering. What would they do
to they?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
Certainly they have reams on them. I mean, you know
any kind you know, we have a saying. When I
taught at the Survival Evasion Resistance Escape School, the school
where we teach you how to behave in captivity, including
going into hostile countries, we had spies that would come
and train about what do you do if the cops
pick you up? Contact with the enemy is a trick.
(26:13):
Everyone is an enemy until you're in.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
The physical United States. As simple as that.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
They every moment he was there, every conversation he's ever had,
every time you know, you know he had sex, all
recorded without any question. Miss Universe twenty thirteen is a gap.
We don't know did he walk through the rooms with
naked chicks. This you know, you don't know, but he
prays food into the high heavens in twenty fourteen, to
(26:43):
the point that Putin created the Internet Research Agency to
manipulates us opinion for him.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
But all of this being.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
Said, I want to get jump back onto economics because
this is tied into the global oligarchy. China is a
stand out example of a nation that is communist controlled
but with a capitalist infrastructure now which has now given
you know, gives them a centralized economic power, and that
(27:16):
they are now unfortunately ridiculously the adults in the room
in the global economic market. I saw, you know, I
knew some things were up with China when I was
living in Abu Dhabi.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
I lived in Abu Dhabi for ten years.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
My late wife was a mega project's landscape architect. She
have billions of dollars in projects she was doing. And
then I suddenly saw her fifty thousand Pakistani workers start
transitioning to where ten thousand Chinese workers would come in.
They would live in a compound by themselves. You never
saw them out in town. They never left that compound.
(27:52):
They were doing construction work on secret projects for the
shape Westerners were barely allowed in, and then things would
magically appear in those ten thousand Chinese workers would disappear,
and I just thought, well, there's something at play in
the world here I hadn't seen. Then I started seeing
China all over Sub Saharan Africa and realized they were
(28:12):
buying Africa, they were trading in countries. We have decided,
apparently with Donald Trump, to surrender the world.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
To China and to only focus on coal.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
To you know, I understand now China will produce every
month more energy from solar and wind than we will
produce in the next year, and China will be able
to win the global power war that that will power
services and you know, global communications things like that in
(28:48):
the future. So if all of this is Donald Trump's
grand plan, to let me put it this way, to
create a white supremacist because to me, in America, based
only on white Walmart shoppers.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Well imagining, none of that stuff's made in China. Where
is his mind? Is it just that he.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
Is aduled, or does he have dementia, or or does
he not care what's happening to the global markets because
he doesn't believe in them.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
He only believes in the power of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Yeah, I think it's it's the latter. He believes in
the power of Donald Trump. He believes in the markets
being geared towards the US. He's you know, the the
if you if you ever get Professor Rogoff on your podcast,
Ken Rogoff, he writes about the current dollar calamity. He says,
(29:45):
the title of the book is our dollar, your problem.
But we right now have dollar supremacy. That's helped us.
It's given us a laxity in our interest rate mechanisms,
and it's it's also brought some hardship on the rest
of the world while protecting us. But the continuation of
this strategy is going to eventually lead to a debt crisis.
(30:06):
And so Trump is sitting there circa nineteen seventy two.
I always picked that year because that was the peak
ratings year for Archie Bunker in all of the family.
And so he sees the world through that Archie Bunker prism,
which is basically white supremacists. Americans are in control. We
can flex on other people militarily or economically, and so
(30:29):
those people should then therefore pay for the privilege to
enter our markets. They should pay taxes and duties and
user fees to enter our markets. And what you're saying
about China is true. Now, I'm a realist on China.
They have a longer term plan than we do. They
(30:49):
have some very smart policy advisors in place. But they
have one thing going against them, and that is the
Communist Party has been very restrictive in terms of human rights.
It's almost impossible. And give this example, Malcolm, it's almost
impossible to have an internationally recognized Chinese celebrity. There's no
(31:12):
tailor swift of China. There are a lot of internationally
recognized French, German and British celebrities, but not China because
the restrictions are such. If they get an actress that's
doing very well, they end up sequestering her and reminding
her that she has certain obligations to the Communist Party
or business leader jack Ma, They're like, oh, you're becoming
(31:35):
too a little bit too well known. We got to
clip your wings and pull you down. So this makes
it hard for China to export its culture and have
it accepted. If you and I were getting old, you
and me, if we drove around in a car in
the Middle East, it was in the eighties it was
Madonna and American music right still buy and large that
(31:58):
And so the great irony of what I'm saying is
we're squandering all of this. We had this position in
the world where our soft power was quite perceived to
be quite beneficial. Our soft power was perceived as a
helping hand to the rest of the world, which helped
us in so many different ways on the margin as
(32:19):
it related to our economy and capital allocation. But the Chinese,
they can give you the money. But the rhetorical question
I always say to people, do you want to live
in China? China's given a lot of money to Africa.
Rah rah, we love the Chinese money in Africa. Do
you yourself want to live in China. Well, the universal
(32:40):
answer to that is usually no. When the Americans were
given the money, it had this multiplication effect on it.
When the Chinese were giving them money, it's a little
bit of a de multiplier effect for them. So it's
something that people have to consider. And I say this
to you because in your podcast, to me this show,
(33:01):
it represents hope. Because you're an American. You believe in
the system, you believe in the flexibility of the system,
the neural plasticicity of the system, and the adaptive change
in the system. So the hope is that we can
wait out Trump. The hope is, when you really look
at the numbers, the people that support Trump have generally
(33:25):
been in the minority. If you put up a phenomenal candidate,
an articular candidate, somebody wise with wisdom, a unifying candidate
with a soaring message about vision for the United States
and what we can do in terms of technology, human rights,
social progress, handling the debt crisis, if you put that
(33:47):
candidate up, they would beat this rhetorical, populous nonsense. But
in the two elections that Donald Trump, he said three elections,
they put up a one generic elderly white man that
beat him. And the other two elections they put up
two women, both experienced, both very bright. I'm not knocking them,
(34:12):
but they just didn't have the gravitas and in Hillary's place,
were being honest. She didn't have the work ethic, and
in com and Vice President Harris and Secretary State Clinton
and Vice President Harris's case, she didn't want to take
any risk. She's not coming on Malcolm Nance's podcast. She's
not going on Joe Rogan she's not going on THEO
(34:33):
Vaughan's podcast, not going to do it. You know, She'll
go to controlled environments to say control things, okay, but
that's not going to get elected, you see. You know,
and I know this was once a hiring decision for
the American people. It's not that anymore. This is a
popularity contest. So we're gonna need to find a galvanizing
(34:54):
leader I can talk to identify with the American people,
talk to white working class people, but also black and
brown people. Malcolm got to be able to do both.
And you gotta be You got to be able to hate.
You don't want America to go in this Handmaid's Tale direction.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Right, And and that brings me to my next question.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
As we're as we're winding down, So I understand that
you are working with the New American.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Party that Elon Musk has proposed. So tell us about that,
because to me, I don't look.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
This could be I always use this analysis, right, because
people who come back and that say, oh, you're a Democrat,
actually was Republican most of my life, right, first person
I were voted for was Ronald Reagan, and it was
the whole new gingrich you know, uh, you know stained
dressed thing.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
That blew it for me.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Because hey, I was in the navy, right, so you know,
is this stuff illegal now?
Speaker 2 (35:57):
All the impeachment of Clinton and everything like that.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
And I also was from the Colum Powell School of
National Security, which is national security strong, you.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Know, and conservative and socially liberal. Right.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
Guy grew up in New York. First language like me,
he ever learned was Yiddish. That's first language I ever learned.
So that being said, we have this two party system.
Elon must appears to be on the outs with Donald Trump.
He has his own worldview.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
I know. He is a believer.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
In some of the philosophies of Curtis Jarvin, this dark
Enlightenment theory, which to me, I've said this actually on
air Curtis Jarvin. For those of you who haven't seen
or heard of Curtis Jarvin, I recommend you go to
the New York Times watched their forty five minute interview
on Curtis Jarvin.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
A man who is a philosopher.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
You know, he's a tech bro philosopher from Silicon Valley
who does not believe in democracy, believes in techno monarchy,
and you know, pretty much has some crazy things to say,
but there are people who are now listening to him.
Peter Thiel, David Sachs, you know, Mark Andresen, the Big
four South Africans that that pretty much runs Silicon Valley.
(37:15):
But what is it you think Elon Musk can bring
to the to the table.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Is he deliberately acting as a spoiler?
Speaker 3 (37:23):
Is he decided the Republican Party needs to split from
MAGA into something else and hopefully that he'll gain popularity
with the eighty million people that didn't vote.
Speaker 2 (37:34):
What is it?
Speaker 1 (37:36):
Well, in fairness, because it may have been misreported, I'm
not yet working with Musk. I am working. I am
working with Andrew Yang on the Forward Party.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
Forward Party.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Yeah, and there's a proposal that Andrew has put together
to Elon for the American Party. And what I would
say to you is an I think that I think
if Elon, because of all those things that you just said,
if Elon really wants a centrist party to take hold,
you and I both know how hard that would be
in the United States because of this very strong duopoly
(38:13):
of these demo publicans that they've put in place. It's
gonna be very hard to break in you're gonna need
tens of billions of dollars to do it.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
But the thought.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
Exactly so, the thought would be put up ten or
fifteen billion dollars with you and your friends. I think
Larry Ellison would likely be involved. And then here is
a decentralized idea to make it stick because I don't
think Let's say you and I were worth one hundred
billion dollars each, and you and I wanted to start
(38:46):
the Malcolm and Anthony Party, and we're gonna put up
ten each. And now it's called the Malcolm and Anthony Party.
We're not gonna get any traction. You need to.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Put up the money.
Speaker 1 (38:59):
It's almost like bitcoin. I'm Malcolm, you got to you
got to decentralize it, and you've got to put up
the money and step back from it and allow other
people to organize around it under the principles of centrism,
in under the principles of making the society fair enough
about left or right policy ideas, but more about what's
(39:21):
right or wrong for the society. So mus if Musk says, hey,
I'm going full Curtis Jarvin and we're going into dark Enlightenment.
It's is not going to stick. It's not gonna happen.
But if Musk says, okay, listen, your eight districts that
are purplish, i am going to put a purple person
in those eight districts and I'm going to help them
(39:42):
win those eight districts, which will totally destroy the current
nonsense that's going on in Washington because it would force
both sides into a more reminiscent. You mentioned Nuke, Gindrid,
you mentioned Bill Clinton didn't like each other, but you
know what, they were forced to make a lot of
(40:03):
compromises for each other and they got a budget balanced.
The last budget that was balanced was a Gindrich Bill
Clinton budget. That was the year two thousand, two hundred
and forty billion dollars. So to me, it's doable. But
by just saying I'm going to be Curtis Jarff.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Sure, this is not.
Speaker 3 (40:26):
We don't have a parliamentary system, right, Those people are
going to have to let's say you win nine seats, right,
and that offsets both parties.
Speaker 2 (40:35):
Someone is going to those nine candidates.
Speaker 3 (40:38):
Are going to have to caucus with one side or
the other in order to elect a speaker, in order
to gain committee seats, or chairmanships.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
So one size of what you could do is you
could be easily setting yourself up to be bought off
by money from one or the others.
Speaker 3 (40:54):
Well, one side, we know Democrats do not have billionaires
the way that we're public can still It's just that's true.
Speaker 1 (41:02):
You could set up a system that could potentially be
even more corrupt. But let's just role play for a second.
Let's say you and I were the elected leaders and
now these guys are trying to elect a speaker, and
you and I say, yeah, okay, we don't like any
of those people. Here's the most moderate person in the House,
and this is the one that we want, So we're
not going to vote. We're not going to allow this
(41:23):
to happen until we get there.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
And you would have to have nine people that are
so rock solid that none of them would ever straight.
Speaker 2 (41:33):
To one side.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
You're you're right, And I'm saying that this is going
to make it very complicated, it's gonna make it very hard.
But I just think the fact that we're talking about
reform and we're talking about the ideas around the current
system not working. Malcolm thirty eight percent approval rating for
the Big beautiful spending bill. They passed it anyway, they
(41:55):
know they're going to get re elected. Malcolm fourteen percent
approval ready for the Congress, slightly above Kim el Jung,
the North Korean dictator for the Congress, but no problem.
Ninety five percent of the incumbents get re elected anyway.
So it is no longer public service. It has become
public self service. I'm going I'm gonna rake it over
(42:18):
the calls for myself and my family. I'm gonna funnel
money into my account through insider trading. I'm gonna get
with the Trumps on their mean coins. We're gonna we're
gonna have a racket here to fly around the world
and meet people and the I'm in the school of
public self service. And you can see it in the
legislative agenda. The big beautiful spending bill. Great for big businesses,
(42:43):
great for rich people, really shitty for the working poor,
and really shitty for the working class people. And but
that's okay. We don't need those people, so we're gonna
vote this in anyway. So Musk, whatever you think of Musk,
at least he's calling that out.
Speaker 3 (43:00):
At least he's say he is calling that out all right,
you know, but again, now my analytical take when I
when people say, oh, well you're a liberal, you're this No, no, no.
If this were Burundi, okay, if this were Brikina Fas though,
which are by the way, both countries have was a
real big internal political problems right now. You know, one
(43:21):
is actually run by a mercenary organ army.
Speaker 2 (43:24):
I would give the same analysis that I'm going to
give right now.
Speaker 3 (43:28):
Okay, one of the two sides is going to have
a balance of power that is disproportionate to the other. Uh,
say what you will about the Democrats. The Democrats are
not rich.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
There are no real rich Democrats.
Speaker 3 (43:41):
Everyone on the Republicans, which I find ironic because when
I was in the military, I was in the Persian Gulf.
I got very bored and I read The Fountainhead by
Anne Rand, which is about the size of you know,
Oxford English Dictionary. But it's really the story is about
internal nepotism destroying a government where everyone gets the fix
(44:02):
right by being helped by their bud and then supposedly
they're rich, smart people all you know, fuck off. The
Colorado or something couldn't quite figure out that part the romance.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
But this system now exists. The ann Ran Fountainhead system
in ways.
Speaker 6 (44:19):
That it has never existed, or maybe hasn't existed since
the nineteen thirty twenties now exists to where you must
be a grifter to get in there.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
How many people from Fox News are working in the administration.
I think the number thirty eight people who are associate
affiliated contributors you know from Fox News are in there.
On the basis of what Donald Trump sees, we have
a Secretary of Defense who is a open white supremacistcurged
(44:51):
the Department of Defense of all contributions of women, blacks, minorities,
others throughout history, including Medal of Honor winner and calling it.
You know, he actually said DEI is dead. In the
Department of Defense. We used to call that teamwork right,
diversity of thought, equality and treatment inside the chain of command,
(45:14):
in the uniform Code of Military Justice.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
And inclusion of all.
Speaker 3 (45:18):
Hands into operations, and that we've strive for that, you know.
But now I've got this government that is run almost
strictly nepotistically. They are in it to make money, and
I suspect that the pendulum will swing the other way.
There will be a president, you know, make crazy president
AOC or something like that. Let's you know, she wouldn't
(45:41):
be my first choice. We will have the power of
a king or queen, whatever it may be, and they
could urge the opposite side of everything they've ever done.
They could literally drag all of these people into court
and have a just department that looks just like Johnald
(46:02):
Trump's Justice Department and have.
Speaker 2 (46:04):
Their own trials.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
I mean, this thing has not been thought out by
the right because it.
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Is a oligarch run.
Speaker 3 (46:12):
We are clearly I wrote in my book Plot to
Destroy Democracy, which was about how Buten was buying right
wing political groups and converting them into these pro Moscow
really oligarch organizations, and that Trump is critical to that.
And I said Trump would convert the United States into
a constitutional autocracy, and whence the constitution is a applied
(46:38):
only to those of his followers and everyone else will
be treated as a vassal. So I suspect that we're
sort of going there, how, you know, I like the
idea of more participation in government. There's eighty percent of
the electorate did not vote, or eighty million people in.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
The electorate did not vote. Almost forty million just.
Speaker 3 (47:00):
Didn't vote at all, because you know, their day to
day lives are harder. They've got kids to do five
ten minutes out of their lives. They don't want to
think about it. They would rather watch WWE, or they'd rather,
you know, watch bugs money or something like that. You know,
last question, how are you going to mobilize them to
support what you do?
Speaker 2 (47:21):
Because what you're described to me is about ninety five.
Speaker 3 (47:25):
Percent of Democrats. They're very purple. They want to help
people on them. They tried to recruit me to come
in as a candidate. I am huge, you know, I
got a huge gun collector, right pro Second Amendment. And
I was asked back when Basil Smichel was director of
the DNC in New York State. He goes, what would
your platform be? And I go, I'm from Philadelphia. I'm
(47:46):
a strict constitutionalist. I'm a gun owner. But I also
understand that for every poor child on the street, that's
where your crime comes from. When you can't feed people,
you can't give people medical I have one hundred percent
on healthcare to the day I died because I retired
from the military.
Speaker 2 (48:03):
Well come the rest of America can't.
Speaker 3 (48:05):
I pretty much come off like Denmark, where I just
came from.
Speaker 2 (48:09):
Oh you know, I look forward to seeing that.
Speaker 3 (48:13):
But you know, if you have any last thoughts on
how we can achieve.
Speaker 1 (48:18):
I think that you represent something that is needed in
our society, and that is the rational middle. And I
see the Democrats differently than you. The Democrats are the
last vestige of hope here, but they've got a hard
left in their party that wants to cancel people. So,
(48:39):
you know, I helped Vice President Harris's team on the
bait print. A couple of my punchlines landed in the debate.
I then went to the spin room in Philadelphia with
other political leaders to help them. In the spin room,
the thought was they wanted me to come on the
campaign plane with her the hard right, I'm sorry, the
(49:01):
hard left, and her party said no. This guy worked
for Donald Trump once, he'd be allowed to do.
Speaker 2 (49:06):
That, so that yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
So I'm just saying, if you really want to help them,
convince them to get people in the tent that they
don't like. You know, Lyndon Johnson would tell you, Malcolm,
let's get everybody in the tent. You know why you
don't like Elon Musk, a very powerful guy. Holds your nose.
Bring him back into the tent. You don't like Anthony Scaramucci.
(49:29):
He once worked for Donald Trump. You didn't like what
he said, what he's working for him? Okay, no problem.
Holds your nose, Bring him back into the tent. Make
the party a pro pro democracy, pro system, pro American party,
and you'll beat the pants off of Trump. But they
fight with each other in a way that weakens them.
Speaker 2 (49:53):
Look.
Speaker 3 (49:53):
I look when the whole Israel invasion of of of
Israel by Hamas hap and I was one of the
few black pro Israel, and I spent forty years working
Middlely Sub Saharan Africa, Middle South Asia intelligence Palestinian terrorist
(50:15):
groups for my first decade, right, I knew all the
players and you know, and I said, oh well, I
come at it from a counter terrorism perspective. You can't
carry out them in each oednocide in southern Israel and
not expect to get your ass kicked.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Because this is what Hamas wanted.
Speaker 3 (50:31):
There is a hard left element in the Democratic Party.
I am a candidate for cutting those people away. I
mean cut away, you know, like you say, defiant, solid middle.
But that middle has shifted Richard Nixon, colinall and Ronald
(50:52):
Reagan on the X Y axis would be lower left corner.
And when you get the and to tell you that truth,
I actually wrote a substack about this where I said
Hamas may have destroyed American American democracy by allowing Trump
to now you know, advocate genocide. Hamas has definitely killed
(51:14):
the Palestinian state.
Speaker 2 (51:15):
There will never be a Palestinian state.
Speaker 3 (51:17):
But we have people in this country who I've said,
straight up, those people are not part of the Democratic Party.
We don't want to hear from them, right, you know.
And they did a good job, I thought the DNC
by not allowing them to speak, not allowing Free Palestine
to hijack. They were nowhere near the convention in Chicago.
They were out in a park three four blocks away,
(51:38):
not being represented.
Speaker 2 (51:40):
And we need You're right, we need to shift hard
to the middle.
Speaker 3 (51:45):
I have some thoughts about who could be a next
presidential candidate that you know that a lot of people
just say, oh, no, we can't have anyone who is military.
You know, we've got to do this, and that we
in the military understand of what hardship is not for ourselves,
but people in foreign countries. I've fed a lot of
(52:05):
kids with my own rations. I've you know, given away
a lot of things too, you know, protected people from
terrorist warlords and all these things. And maybe we do
need that shift to the hard realism of a solid center.
And I am allfore cutting away the crazy left right
(52:26):
Rashida Talib she wants to represent her constituency without backing
the rest of the party. By I've I've said that
on air. Right African Americans who are solidly down the
middle right, a solid forty two million voting block, I'm
having a hard time right now convincing them to come
(52:48):
out and support anything against Trump because, as a lot
of them say, they're exhausted now. They did their job
in the last selection and now they're feeling abused.
Speaker 2 (52:57):
So I wish you luck in chasing that.
Speaker 3 (53:01):
I've had it out with Andrew Yangle on Twitter a
couple of times too, because it's probably in the sky
and and it's fun to discuss. But I'm a hard,
hard grounded realist, right you know the I.
Speaker 2 (53:15):
Like talking to you.
Speaker 1 (53:16):
I like talking to you for that reason. Listen, I
I I see the world with this complexity, and I
still am trying my hardest, you know. You know what, Malcolm,
I'm too short to see the glasses anything other than
half full. When I look at the glass, it looks
full to me.
Speaker 2 (53:32):
You know.
Speaker 1 (53:32):
I gotta I gotta try to stay optimistic and lean
on some hope that we can fix these ills that
we're currently going through.
Speaker 3 (53:40):
Okay, well, thank you so much for coming onto the podcast.
I would look forward to coming onto yours with you
and lovely Ka.
Speaker 1 (53:50):
I would love to talk to you about your books
as well on open books, so that would be awesome.
Speaker 3 (53:54):
Okay, Well, essentially eventually here my memoir has been sitting
in the Pentagon for a year getting cleared. It's a
top secret, you know, it's got all sorts of crazy
stuff in.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
There getting cleared.
Speaker 3 (54:06):
So hopefully my memoir is what will be discussing Thinker
sailor black Man Spy and you can learn some some
fun stories about how the rest of the world sees
us through an espionage perspective. Right now, it ain't pretty,
but you know, it was a good learning curve for
all of us.
Speaker 2 (54:25):
So thank you again. And I'll ask you out there
where you're at come see me.
Speaker 1 (54:30):
You know what, We've had lunch here before come see me.
Speaker 2 (54:32):
I will do all right, take care of me, brother Bell.
That was really a great episode.
Speaker 3 (54:39):
We have just had some of the best guests on
who are bringing into context some of the stressors that
are going on within America right now. That will do
it for this week's Black Man's Spy. But before I go,
as you know, I like to quote poems from Rudyard
(54:59):
Kip and other people from the classic period. I'm a
member of the Kipling Society, which is in England. I
study Rodero Kipling because as an intelligence officer, foreign linguished
specialist and a writer and author, which is RUDYERD.
Speaker 2 (55:16):
Kipling, not just me. I like to take the wisdom.
Speaker 3 (55:22):
That he has for us from the nineteenth century and
transpose it to the twenty first century, especially when things
are low. But this week I have a special quote
that I'd like to give to you which comes from
another poem poet I'm sorry, poet Thomas Babington McCauley, and
(55:42):
this is the story of Brave Horatius at the Gate.
What I'll do is I will read the story and
then I will give it to you the backstory in context.
So with that, I'm going to give you a quote
Horatius at the gate. But the consul's brow was sad,
(56:05):
and the console's speech was low, and darkly looked he
at the wall, and darkly at the foe. Their van
will be upon us before the bridge goes down. And
if they once might win the bridge, what hope to
save the town? That outspoke brave Horatius, the captain of
the Gate, to every man upon this earth.
Speaker 2 (56:26):
Death cometh soon or late?
Speaker 3 (56:28):
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds
for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of
his gods, and for the tender mother who dandled him
to rest, and for the wife who nurses his baby
at her breast, and for the holy maidens who feed
the eternal flame. To save them from the false sextus
(56:51):
that wrought the deed of shame hew down the bridge,
Sir Console, with all the speed ye may I, with
two more to help me, will hold the foe in
play in yon straight path. A thousand may well be
stopped by three. Now who will stand on either hand
and keep the bridge with me? Then outspoke Spurius Lartius,
(57:15):
a Remian. Proud was he lo, I will stand at
thy right hand and keep the bridge with thee. And
outspoke strong Herminius of Titian blood, was he, I will
abide on thy left side and keep the bridge with thee. Horatius,
quoth the consul, as thou sayest, so let it be,
(57:38):
and straight against that great array, fourth went the dauntless three.
The story is about the commander of the gates leading
into Rome as it was being attacked and invaded by
the Etruscans, and Horatius in this poem, along with just
(57:58):
two other men, stood by and held the gate of
Rome against the Etrushcans. And the story, as you can
clearly tell, is about standing up against fierce odds, standing
against where everyone else is run away and scared and
is cowered by the strength of an enemy that comes
(58:22):
and faces you. And all he needed was one on
his right and his left hand, and he had more
than enough bravery to save Rome. Who is our Horatius,
who will stand to your left and to your right,
because you are the captain of the gate in the
(58:43):
defense of American democracy. You are the only person who
will be able to muster someone to stand on your
right and to your left to help save the values
that America has had for two hundred and fifty years,
which are now under threat by a wanna be dictator.
(59:06):
As General Milly said, we don't take an oath to
a king, we don't take an oath to a tyrant,
we don't take an oath to a dictator, and we
definitely don't take an oath to a wanna be dictator.
And like horatious, what better way to go down than
(59:26):
to stand against fearful odds. MAGA does not own America.
We are the people. You are the people. We are America,
and if we stand fast and stand together, we will
all get through this crisis. Well that's it for this
(59:47):
week's Black Man's Spy. Thanks for coming. Be sure to
tune in and subscribe on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, the Black
Man Spy podcast, and Special Intelligence on Substack at Malcolm
Nance dot substack dot com. You can also find me
own Bluesky at Malcolm Nance dot bsky dot social and
(01:00:09):
if you're still around on Twitter, I'm still there at
Malcolm Nance. So thanks again for coming to this episode.
I will see you next week on the Beach
Popular Podcasts
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.