Transcription
Welcome back to the D'vori Darkens Show. And in today's, uh, episode, we have a phenomenal, uh, guest that we get to interview, which I'm very grateful for because all of the noise that we're hearing on social media and in the podcast world regarding what this president is doing, what this administration has been up to, uh, and even the history of our country regarding what's happening globally, uh, it's always a breath of fresh air to bring on someone who can look past that and give us the historical context and their, uh, point of view about what's really happening. And that person happens to be today, uh, Susan Kokinda, who is a political commentator, um, a leader of something called the Prometheian Action, which is a, a group, and I'll let her explain all of that. Uh, but, um, I'm so grateful to have you here, Susan. How are you?
>> I'm great. Thanks for having me.
>> Absolutely. Absolutely. Why don't we, uh, start with probably the most dramatic topic, I guess, the most heated one, uh, which is in regards to the president, um, and Iran and this whole dynamic of what's been playing out in the Middle East and how when he first came in, there was a lot of attention with, uh, Ukraine, and now there's all this attention with Iran. Um, can you help the audience make sense of this because there's a lot of opinions, a lot of noise? Where should people focus their attention on first?
>> Look, I think people need to focus their attention on what the real war actually is. Uh, it's not about Iran. It's not about Ukraine. You, you [clears throat] have to go back to the 19th century. We can go back to the founding of our country, but we'll keep it a little shorter, you know, and look at what today people call globalism is really just a modern version of the British Empire. And how did the British Empire figure out how to continue to rule the world even though they weren't that physically powerful at a certain point? And that is to get a lot of countries fighting each other all the time. Uh, it was called British geopolitics. It had a more cynical word, which was the Great Game, which frankly gets a little bit closer to the truth because it basically says nations are simply pieces on a chessboard, and we're going to use them as needed. Which is why sometimes you see in various parts of the world, one day the big powers are on the side of one country, and the next day they're on the side of another country because it's not about the countries. It's about how do we keep people constantly at each other's throats so we can continue to run the world financial system? That's what it's about. And when you look at this situation with Iran, you can begin to see it, I think, even more clearly because a lot of things have come into the open which were not in the open before. Like, at the outset of the conflict, where all of a sudden Lloyds of London announces, "Hey, we're cutting insurance for ships going through the straits." They had never done that before. They, you know, they would raise the rates and so on, but cutting it off was a way of this imperial financial elite saying, "We don't like what Donald Trump is doing." Why? Because he's trying to take Iran off the chessboard as a chess piece where the empire constantly has a choke point. They can constantly jack up the price of oil. They can throw economic chaos into the situation. And what is Donald Trump doing? He's saying, "No, this is over. We want, and, and here's the important part, and this is what differentiates Trump from the regime changers and the neocons." He says, "We don't want to send Iran back to the stone age." Now, they got a problem with the IRGC. Obviously, they know that this is, you know, you have a very fractured, factional situation inside Iran. But what the president would, would like, and it will be up to the people on the other side to ultimately accept the deal, but he would like a nation which is no longer running terrorist proxies around the world. A nation which is no longer trying to get nuclear weapons to threaten everybody, and a nation which no longer, you have an economic choke point and disrupt the world economy. He wants Iran to be a normal nation like everybody else. Which is why I think he's being so patient in terms of the negotiations. He thinks he can do it, and he's going to give the factions who are not nuts enough time to actually sort this thing through. Imagine a Middle East which is not constantly on the verge of blowing up, where nations can begin to sort out their relations with each other, and most importantly, begin to economically develop and have peaceful, mutually beneficial relations with other nations. That is not the British Great Gate, Great Game. That is not geopolitics. That is not how the globalists have run things for the past 40 or 50 years.
>> I, I heard you mention British, uh, a few times here, so I, I think I, I would probably be best if I asked this question right up front. Just to cut to the chase, what country is the biggest threat to America?
>> Well, I don't think it's a country.
>> Okay.
>> Uh, I think it's, okay. I think it's a system. I think it's an imperial system which goes back to what we fought the American Revolution against, which has had its financial and strategic headquarters in London since the time of the American Revolution. It's not the British people. It's not the British nation, but it's a system. It's a system of central banking. It's a system of free trade. It's an ideological system. It's a system of, again, geopolitics. It's a system. And then you look at where that system has placed itself. Where, where has it plunked itself? You know, where's its command headquarters? Where's one of its operating bases? Iran has been one of its operating bases. And there's a history there in terms of the Muslim Brotherhood, we can get to. But, uh, you know, it's, it's not a country. You know, it's not China, it's not Russia, it's not Iran. It's a system. And then you look at where that system is operating out of. Are there government institutions that are operating on behalf of that system? Well, certainly in the case of the British, there are, uh, you know, the Bank of England, MI6, their entire foreign policy establishment. Uh, but, but the important thing is to look at, I always say it's, it's, it's verbs. It's not nouns. You know, look at the system process.
>> Yeah. Uh, it's really eye-opening the way that you put that because it's a different paradigm of looking at things. So, essentially, uh, Iraq and Afghanistan, I, I served in Afghanistan for one year. Um, and my biggest takeaway was fraud, waste, and abuse, but someone was making a lot of money off all of this stuff. And so what I hear you saying, if, just give me some rope here, uh, is that globally there is a system set up to profit from these wars or conflicts. Is that correct? Do I have that right?
>> It's not just simple profit. I mean, there's plenty of grift, you know, there's no doubt about that. But the real question is, can you maintain from the standpoint of the globalists, and again, we simply give it its, its, its brand name, the British Empire, can you continue to run the world financial system the way you want to run it? And that's largely been on the basis of a system of central banking, uh, where you have powerful, largely private financial interests, because that's what central banks are, right? They're, you know, our Federal Reserve ain't federal. It's a central bank. It's a private bank, and it's, it, it's one of the Johnny-come-latelies. What, we didn't have that till 1913. Uh, but, but you have a world of central banks, you have the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements. What do these, what do these institutions serve? Do they serve the, the national interests of their, the nations they may happen to be in? No. They serve a financial elite. Look at the 2008 blowout here in the United States. The Federal Reserve jumped in and saved the so-called too big to fail banks. I just listened to an interview with Scott Bessant, and he said, "Yeah, and, you know, we said for the community banks and the smaller banks, you're too small to survive." So, you, you had a central bank which saved the financiers and left everybody else to fall by the wayside. That didn't serve the interests of the United States. It's that system that they're trying to perpetuate. And again, sure, there's plenty of people who will try and make plenty of money and become billionaires and grifters and so on in that system, but it's not just about individual greed. It's about maintaining a system.
>> Mhm. Uh, which I think a great example of that would be, and correct me if I'm wrong, some of the reactions we've seen when the president decided, uh, to deal with Iran in the way that he has. How, you know, like a country like Canada, for example, or Italy, some of these countries, uh, were hesitant to get involved. Is that a fair example to, to make? Is, okay, go.
>> I mean, especially Britain. I mean, you know, we can, we can thank Tony Blair for, you know, weapons of mass destruction and our little excursions starting with Iraq, which ended up in Afghanistan, where you were, and so on. The British have not met a war they didn't like, >> you know, in the last 30 or 40 years. And their policymakers have been, you know, egging every single one of them on because they've been part of this geopolitical game. Donald Trump comes along and says, "No, I'm going to do something different. This is not a war to maintain British geopolitics. This is a war to take off the chessboard a very dangerous capability and move the world more toward a world of sovereign nations." And all of a sudden, the entire NATO establishment, you know, the EU, the UK, this entire, and Canada, of course, jump in and say, "Oh, no, we don't want to do that because it's not maintaining their system." That's what they don't want.
>> Let's actually go a little deeper here. What do, in the beginning of this system being set up, why do you think they're so convinced that this is a better way to run the world instead of the alternative?
>> Well, I, I, when, when you start peeling it back, what it really gets down to is a question of the image of man. Uh, I mean, we've had imperialism on this planet, you know, as long as recorded history, and, you know, probably before actual recorded history, because you, you do have an ideology, an unfortunate, and I consider evil ideology, which says man is just an animal. Uh, but some of us are better bred, we have bluer blood, or we just happen to be richer, and we have the right to rule the rest of you animals. And they, they, they have built their power structures over the years to do this. Now, along came this upstart country, the United States of America, and said, "No, we have a different image of man. We're all created equal. Uh, we're in the image of the creator. We have inalienable rights, and we actually want to have the freedom to economically develop our country, to progress, to move forward, to give everybody the opportunity to advance. Um, you know, if, if they, they were but to create a system where people have the opportunity to advance, and where our power and our strength comes from increasing the productive powers of labor, which is a quote from Alexander Hamilton, through unleashing the creativity of the human mind." The imperial system doesn't like that because when you have human beings acting like human beings, you can't control them. That's where the essential conflict comes in. It is this fundamental issue of the image of man, and, you know, if you want to put it in its simplest terms from my standpoint, it is good versus evil.
>> So, if we think about the president's foreign policy, what do you think people misunderstand about it the most? Because I, I would like to say, I think it's fair to say that, you know, here stateside, uh, you know, in your local neighborhood, the average Joe Schmo walking down the street probably doesn't care much to look into everything about why Iran is on the map for the president at this point. They just see high gas prices, for example. Um, so could you help us understand, um, what we need to be clear on as, as Americans here?
>> Well, I, I think the critical question in terms of the president's foreign policy, and he's been clear about this since his first term, uh, he gave an amazing speech, I think it was at an Asian summit in Vietnam, which is somewhat ironic, given our history with Vietnam. Um, you know, where he said, "I, I see every nation as a pearl on a beautiful necklace, or as stars in a constellation." Th, this idea that every nation should have the right to develop, that it shouldn't have externally imposed rules like free trade and the whole toolkit from globalization, which says, "Oh, no, we're going to determine, you know, what you can grow based on the markets, and you're going to be dependent on the world for everything else," which is essentially what we've been living through. I mean, we saw it in the United States in terms of losing our manufacturing. But the, but the president says, "No, nations, we need a system where nations have the, the right and the opportunity to economically develop, and then figure out what their relations are with each other." He's pursuing a foreign policy with that as his goal. Now, it's involved a couple of kinetic actions, like Venezuela, although that was pretty brief, and I think it is a classic example of Trump's policies. That is, we didn't go in guns blazing with George Bush, Tony Blair style regime change. We took out Maduro, who was the basically the enforcer for the drug cartels, narco-terrorism, and we can get into the role of the international banks in terms of financing drug money laundering. Um, but he pulled him out and then said to the country, "Okay, we got rid of this guy. Why don't you figure out how to, how to run your country in a better way?" Which they're doing. And so now we have healthy relations with Venezuela. We have access to more gas and oil and so on. It was a very limited kinetic operation. I think the same principle applies in Iran. I, Iran. It's just much more complicated, much more intricate situation in terms of the IRGC and much longer-standing operations there. But his purpose is to create a world where economic progress is the metric for the world. So how is that going to help the United States? Well, obviously, we have to get through this current conflict, and the president is not going to compromise on his objectives in terms of nuclear weapons, you know, uh, opening up the strait and so on. Um, but get to the point where you get through that, what is the average Joe on this street going to see? I think he's going to see gas prices now come down fairly quickly. And I think it's going to clear away the fog of war so that people can begin to appreciate everything else this administration is doing in terms of bringing manufacturing back into the United States and creating the circumstances for which Detroit, when I grew up, was the poster child where one income, one blue-collar income could comfortably raise a family. We have not had that since NAFTA. In fact, we were losing it before NAFTA. But imagine a world, you know, in which one blue-collar income comfortably and stably raises a family. That's what's in it for the average Joe on the street. But, you know, we got to cut away a little bit of the fog. We got to get through some bumps in the road. Um, as Scott Bessant just said in the interview that I watched, there's a huge amount of manufacturing construction going on, but those, those facilities aren't finished. They're not hiring yet, but not too far down the road is a very, very different United States where people don't have to scramble at five jobs and still not make ends meet.
>> Yeah. Thank you for explaining that. Um, so it, it really just sounds like he's in the thick of it. And when you're trying to do something radical, you know, it's really easy for people to lose faith, right? Because it's a process. It's not going to happen overnight. So for the younger people out there who see this and say, "Oh, this is Israel once again controlling the foreign policy of America." What, what is your, like, reaction to that? Because that sentiment is out there, um, and it's prevalent with Gen Z, and they are our future leaders, so to speak. So, what, what should they look at to help them have a better point of view on this?
>> Well, it, it is obviously prevalent out there. Uh, and as somebody who's been on the political battlefield since the 1960s, late 1960s, and in the 1970s, my organization came under vicious attack from the Anti-Defamation League. You know, this ain't my first rodeo in terms of the role of the so-called Zionist lobby here in the United States. It exists, but it's not fundamental. Because as we discovered in our battles in the 1970s and the 1980s, it's just another arm of this imperial operation. And what I would say to the young people is, don't look at the shadows on the wall when, when you're, when, when you know, when suddenly the social, the, the blogosphere and the social media world is screaming about nothing but Israel and APAC [clears throat] and so on. Um, maybe you might want to look at where, where and why all of that is is being generated because behind that, I think you're going to find something else, which again, is the British Empire playing its different assets to maintain the system which is screwing Gen Z. I mean, that, that's what I want people to start to look at. Um, look at what's generating the shadows and look at who has actually rigged the system. The system has been rigged by a powerful financier elite, and no, they are not all Jewish. Uh, one thing I would say to Gen Z, there's a really excellent book. Um, I know people don't read a lot of books, but this is short, well-written. Uh, it's by Richard Poe and it's entitled *How the British Created Communism and Blamed It on the Jews*. It is amazingly sourced and again, well-written. It's not dry. At least 15% of the book is footnotes, but it will give you an insight into a methodology which has been used for a long time. The empire does terrible things. And this says, "Oh, look over there. That's your problem." Because as much as you've got a layer of the population which is saying it's Israel and the Jews, I'm sure you've noticed there's another layer of the population that says it's the Muslims, right? The Muslims are going to take over. Sharia law is going to be everywhere. And that's the enemy image. Um, and again, look behind it. You want to look where radical Islam came from. The Muslim Brotherhood was a direct outgrowth of British intelligence in the 1920s. Couple of good books on that as well. It's there if you look for it. So look at who's, look at who is throwing you in a particular direction to keep your emotions all at fever pitch and angry and not noticing what the real fight is, because the real fight is the fight of empire versus sovereign nations. And again, I've been in it for a long time. My first political campaign was Robert Kennedy Senior in 1968. I mean, I was in California when he was shot. I was young, but I was there, you know. So, again, this isn't my first rodeo. Um, and, and as, as I've gone through this fight over the decades, you know, and peeled back the layers, when, by the time Donald Trump came along and started doing the things he was doing, I said, "Wow, you actually have somebody who is fighting the war, not these individual battles."
>> Wow. That is that is really interesting. So, I mean, I, I have to admit, this is, it's like, like I said in the beginning, it's a paradigm shift. I mean, no one that I've ever heard of has spoken about the British Empire in the way that you're speaking about it now and communicating the idea that they've been behind, uh, this imperialism on this planet and behind some of these movements. So, help us, help us catch up with you here. What's the single easiest piece of evidence to communicate to people who are watching that there's some credibility to that idea?
>> Well, I think the single piece of evidence is the negative piece of evidence.
>> Uh, our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, then through Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley, they created a system which was known in the 19th century as the American system of political economy. That's what it was known as. It was known as that worldwide. You had people in Japan studying it. You had people in Russia and China and Germany studying the American system of political economy, which they understood was the counter to the British imperial system. And the American system of political economy said, "We're going to measure our economy, the health of our economy, on the basis of real physical economic growth and uplifting the standard of living of the population, making them more productive, more efficient, and so on." The British system is based on a tiny elite sucking the blood out of whatever country they want to, whether it's raw materials extraction, or, uh, controlling the oil flows, or the price of oil, or, we want to go back to the 17th century, the slave trade, um, you know, and then the cotton economy here in the United States. But, but all of these are, are aspects of a system which just looks at human beings as beasts of burden. You squeeze out of them as much as you can. You look at nations as beasts of burden. You squeeze out of it as much as it can. Um, and it all feeds the, uh, the financial elite. That was well known in the 19th century. That was the issue. So my answer to that is the, is again, the negative proof. What happened to the knowledge of the American system? Well, I'll tell you what happened. That the British assassinated our presidents. Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, you had Garfield in, in between. He wasn't quite as significant as Lincoln or McKinley. Uh, John Kennedy wasn't a Republican, but he essentially pursued those same kind of nation-building, truly nation-building policies. And then along came Donald Trump. All targets. Why? Because they don't want you to know that there is an actual American alternative to what you call today globalization, imperialism, finance, capitalism, whatever word you, you want to use. That's your negative proof. And when you look at history, what you see is around the time of the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, which is when McKinley was assassinated in 1901, you have a major operation by British institutions like Chatham House and the British Round Table, and they basically say, "Okay, our policy has to be, we have to get the United States to be our dumb giant. We have to get the United States to forget their own tradition, their own American system, and they have to be our tool in the, in the world." And what you have right now is really kind of amusing because since Donald Trump is not playing that game any longer and acting with the United States as a sovereign nation, suddenly all of these institutions that are tied to this British imperial outlook, like Chatham House, or the Council on Foreign Relations here in the United States, which is a direct spin-off of this imperial outlook back in 1922, or people like Mark Carney up in Canada, they're all saying the same thing, "Oh, Trump broke the rules-based order. That's how we ran the world. We ran the world based on people accepting our rules, and the United States enforcing it." And that's not working any longer. What do we do now? So, they're kind of running around trying to figure out how to do it. Um, so I, I would say there's two places people can look. One, right now, these British institutions are admitting it, and that's pretty much what I cover in my updates on Prometheian Action. And number two, what happened to the American system, which is our unique contribution to the world in terms of how do you run an economy which is actually for the benefit of human beings and not a bunch of financial parasites.
>> Yeah. Um, something I want to go back to because you mentioned the central banks, um, and they're behind, they, they are the essentially the financial thing that's running all of this, right? Um, did you hear about this story of how, and I'll read it to you here for, for verbatim, it says that gold has surpassed US Treasuries as top central bank reserve asset. Is that particular headline, is there anything there that people should be aware of? Because this is obviously new. I mean, gold is up to 27.7% now, uh, which is an increase. Uh, it's never been this high. Do, do you have any thoughts about that?
>> Well, I, I think you get the high price of gold. Gold is going to go up, or other precious metals, whenever you're in a, you know, a period of some kind of dislocation. Um, the, the fundamental question in terms of national banks, the way, the way to understand it is, you have to go back to what we had before we had the Federal Reserve. >> We had a national bank. It was not run by private bankers. It was established by an act of Congress. It was staffed, you know, according to that act. What was its mission? Its mission wasn't to stabilize London, or there was no Wall Street back then. That came a little bit later. Um, but to stabilize the financiers. Its mission was to ensure that there was credit available for the people who wanted to build this country. And it worked. Lincoln brought it back in another form. Um, but the, the question of this question of what form of banking is going to dominate is really fundamental because a national bank is slaved to the sovereignty of the nation. That's its mission. Its purpose is to act on behalf of the nation. A central bank is an instrument for this global financier elite to keep ruling things. And the, the essence for a, a healthy economy in terms of what, for example, what do, what do you tie your, your currency to? Because obviously, you don't want to have a situation where you just start printing paper willy-nilly like we did, you know, under Biden and after 2008 and so on. What do, what do you want to tether the, the issuance of your currency to? Well, prior to 1971, we had a gold reserve system. It wasn't one-to-one for gold, but you had to have a, a relationship between, uh, your gold and your balance of trade payments and so on, but it was a way of tethering. It ultimately, though, is not the thing. It's not the gold or the silver or a barrel of oil, you know, it's, is your economy organized in such a way that it will continue to grow by producing new and better things that will in turn create a healthier, more productive, more creative population? That's what you actually ultimately want to create as your metric. That's a challenge. But whenever you at least have that as an idea, which we did under Lincoln, we did under McKinley. And honestly, if people listen to either of, uh, two things Scott Bessant recently did, a speech he gave last Friday at the Reagan Economic Forum in California, and an interview he just did with Orin Cass on American Compass. He doesn't use the word American system, but you hear this concept in terms of what he's saying. We should be producing things. The basis of our economy should be production and not consumption. We should be manufact, we should be inventing and manufacturing things here. We need to have a system which is not rigged against the average Joe. I mean, these are the things your Treasury Secretary is saying, and, and that's, that's really where it comes down to because people can get all caught up in, you know, the specifics of currencies and precious metals and bond markets and this, and a lot of that is above my head. Uh, but there's a principle, and the principle is, do you want to measure the health of your economy by how much money you've got, or do you want to measure the health of your economy by whether you are producing, progressing, improving? And I would always say, create, creating a, a, a population which has the, the ability to create and innovate and move into the future. That's the health of your nation. And it's been a while since we've had that.
>> Yeah. It, it's interesting because at a, at the individual level, as a human, I mean, I think we're at our happiest moments when we are creating something instead of just sitting by and and consuming, which I would say that's probably the problem with Americans today on social media. Um,
>> That's right.
>> So, let's talk about the cartels because that, that topic there really interests me because I, I can't for the life of me, I, I don't understand why, uh, administration after administration, besides Trump at this point, why they have been so hesitant or, uh, they have not done anything to address them. And, so, could you explain to us why, why hasn't it taken until President Trump to finally make a move against the cartels in the way that he has?
>> Well, to get the right image in your head, think British opium wars. I mean, think of how the British Empire not only used opium to subjugate the Chinese people, but it was also an integral part of their financial system. You know, you had an economic relationship between the opium trade, the cotton trade in, in India, um, you know, and, and how they ran the entire financial system in terms of the 20th and the 21st century. Look, you wouldn't have cartels on the scale that you have them if they were moving their money around the world in shoe boxes. They're not. They're going through the world's biggest financial institutions, and some of the biggest criminals in this, many of whom have been caught but generally get a slap on the wrist, are Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, uh, the big Canadian banks, the New York banks, the offshore banks down in the Cayman Islands. So, th, this illegal, the dirty money that comes from drug trafficking has been an integral part of this speculative financial system. And in fact, there was a speech at the UN, I think back in the 1990s, I think it was by the guy who at that time was the Russian drug czar, and he, he made very clear that, I guess it might have been later than that because I think he was talking about the 2008 financial collapse, and he said, "The system would have collapsed if it weren't for the dirty money that it was, dirty money flooding back into the banks, into the so-called legitimate banking system," um, which kept some of these big banks afloat during that financial blowout. So, that, that's the answer. The answer is that drug trafficking and dirty money laundering is part of the business model of the British Empire, which is why nobody ever went after it seriously. And now you have an administration that is not only in terms of interdiction, you know, we've seen the reports [clears throat] in terms of how much they've cut the importation of fentanyl into the United States, but they're going after money, and that's how you really dry it up.
>> Yeah. Um, so what would be a successful administration for the president in regards to the context of cartels? Like, once he leaves the White House, how do you, how do you say he was successful on this issue? Like, what, what is the exact metric?
>> Well, I think it, it's what he's doing right now. You, you see it in Venezuela. You see it in a slightly more tense way with Mexico because it's a difficult situation for the Mexican leadership, given how powerful the cartels have been. But the fact that you've had a governor and a mayor arrested just in the past couple of days, past couple of weeks in Mexico, in cooperation with the United States, you know, as operating with the cartels. What you have, success would be strengthening, first of all, cutting off the financial flows to these, these operations. And if you look at the way the Treasury is operating, Bessant once said, uh, 50% of his time is spent on national security. Yeah. Guess what he's talking about there? He's talking about this kind of stuff. And it's not just, you know, the money flows for the IRGC. Um, so you, you close down these channels, but at the same time, you build up the ability of nations to actually defend themselves. I mean, that, that's the big challenge in Mexico. Uh, how many elected officials have been assassinated by the cartels so that they could maintain their control over the country? So you assist nations in, in basically liberating themselves from the cartels. And there have been a number of other major developments, you know, extraditions which we'd never seen before. I think one of the top trend people was, uh, extradited on RICO charges. Uh, cooperation with Guatemala, cooperation with Ecuador, where you're basically saying to the sovereign nations, "Hey, we're on your side again. We're no longer on the side of the, you know, of what we call Dope Incorporated," because, you know, it's not just the criminals, it's the bankers. That's what Dope Incorporated is comprised of. And the United States is on your side now. So, you begin to strengthen nations once again to be able to fight against this. Um, and, you know, you change enough of the direction of the United States, I hope permanently, and I think you've got, you've got a new world.
>> So, I, I guess in saying that, it would probably be, uh, uh, a good point to, I guess, uh, think about. Why are Democrats so against the president on a lot of these issues then? Besides the partisan stuff that just comes with the territory, right, of being a president, of course, they're going to disagree with him on things, but why disagree with him in regards to the cartels? Why disagree with him in regards to even some of the things with Iran? I mean, some of the things that I find that he's doing is exactly what they've been saying that they were going to do, but they never did it. So, could you explain to us why, what's going on there?
>> Well, from the standpoint of these national Democrats in the Senate and the House, you know, I, I don't know what more to say except the fact that they're just nuts. Um, I mean, the Democratic Party is no longer an institution which represents what any average American wants. The Democratic Party is essentially captured by this, this establishment. You know, we, I mean, look, there's, there's folks in the Republican Party who aren't much better. So, we could talk about the uni-party, but obviously, you know, this insanity has metastasized inside the Democratic Party. This is not the Democratic Party of 20 years ago. It's certainly not the Democratic Party of 60 years ago. In fact, back in, uh, 2020, when Trump was running for his second run, uh, I made a big banner which we held up, uh, on an overpass outside one of the big auto plants here in Detroit that said, "Donald Trump, the best Democrat since JFK," because the old Democratic Party would have agreed with him. Why do you think Bobby Kennedy Jr. is in this administration? Right? So, I, I think the current Democratic Party as it's constituted at the top, and, you know, it extends down with various degrees of control into the state and local areas, is, is just an institution which functions as the propaganda arm for this globalist elite and has no relationship whatsoever to what your average person, what is your average person in, you know, the middle of Detroit or Houston want for their kids? They want to cut the drugs and, you know, the crime and the fentanyl, and they want them to have a good education, and they want them to have a future. And that's what this administration is trying to do. And why would the Democrats oppose it? Because it has nothing to do with objective disagreements. They're just a propaganda arm for, you know, for a global elite.
>> And how does illegal immigration fit into that exactly? Because it seems to me there was a coordinated effort to willfully disregard the laws of our land by opening the border and handicapping, uh, border patrol agents. So, how does that fit into all of this?
>> Well, part of it was the drugs and the crime, and obviously part of it is, and part of it was, I mean, before the, the latest surges in the recent 10-15 years, look, there was a wing of the Republican Party, call it your Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street wing, they love to have illegal workers in here to keep the wage levels down, right? You know, um, so that, that was part of it, but it, it kind of metastasized. And now a big part of it, I think, is the, you know, the ability to, the ability to have political control by having this huge pool of illegal voters that you can deploy at will. Well, clearly the president is drawing that up. There's obviously a cultural question. You know, there's a question of bringing, of consciously bringing in a concentration of people into an area who have no intention to assimilate. I mean, our nation is a nation of immigrants, but the immigrants who have come to the United States prior to these, the waves of these recent years, have come to assimilate. You know, it's like the, the Muslim question. Here in the area of Detroit that I'm in, you've had a vibrant Muslim community of immigrants in the 50s and the 60s and the 70s. And yes, they kept their religion, and they kept their food and their culture, but they, they were Americans. They assimilated as Americans and were, and served in the military and made great contributions and so on. But then you have this other thing, and you see it more clearly in Britain. It would have, we would have ended up where Britain is if Donald Trump hadn't come along. But the, the latest one is, instead, you're just bringing in hordes of people who you're deploying as cannon fodder to destroy the culture, to destroy communities, to have a political pool of votes, and to have a pool of free, free labor. Um, so it's, you know, it, again, it's part of the imperial business model. Um, you know, immigration is necessary for any nation. Um, you know, I wouldn't be here if my Irish and Polish ancestors, you know, hadn't moved to this great land of opportunity. Um, and different waves at different times, but im, that, that's one thing, legal immigration, and, and immigration of people who come here because they do want to partake in the great experiment of the American republic, and then the, these other layers that are simply brought in as cannon fodder for a completely different purpose. And I think our president is doing a pretty good job of reversing that.
>> Yeah. Let, let's go back to, uh, you also spoke about these assassinations throughout history, um, and some of these attempts. So, where does Donald Trump fall into that? Are you saying this imperialism, this system, uh, that originates out of London, these are the individuals or the system that was behind these attempts on his life?
>> We have a, we have a, uh, ebook on our Prometheian Action website entitled, *It Is the British Who Murder Our Presidents*. And it looks at four cases, both first and foremost from the policy standpoint, each of the four presidents that we identify. Now, Trump is not assassinated, but he certainly has been the target, I suspect, of more assassination attempts than anybody that I know of. But Lincoln, McKinley, and Kennedy, they all were advocates, either by name or by policy, of the American system. And the same thing is true of Trump, again, by policy, although increasingly by name, members of his cabinet, like his trade ambassador, are increasingly talking about the American system, which nobody did for over a hundred years. So the first thing to understand is why particular people are targeted because, again, this, this system of economics, which is one which is not dominated by money, when we still have money, it's a means of exchange, but a system which is dominated by human creativity, that is anathema to the empire. So if you have a president who represents that, he's got to be eliminated. So what we go through in our pamphlet is, you know, pulling on the intelligence strings in terms of who the assassins were, what the apparatus around them. And with Trump, why don't we just start with MI6 and Christopher Steele and the original Russia, Russia, Russia dossier? I mean, before you get to the attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, you had the attempted political assassination of him in his first administration. And you pull on the string, and it's not mysterious. You find British intelligence, British layers, British media all over the place. Um, yeah, I'm, I'm, I'll, I'm stunned to say the least. Um, so I, I guess it begs the question, should we expect more assassination attempts?
>> Uh, look, as far as I'm concerned, from the standpoint of this imperial system, Donald Trump and his administration are an existential threat. That is, if he succeeds, and that means we got to get through the midterms. We've got to get more of his economic policies implemented. So much of what he's done has been executive order. You know, a lot of these spokesmen for British, the British outlook, like Mark Carney and Council on Foreign Relations, they're using words like "interregnum," you know, "blip." Trump is an aberration. We'll be able to go back to normal, you know, if we can just ride it through the next couple of years. So it, it pres, but they know these, I mean, and they pretty much say it, if Donald Trump is able to bring these policies back to life, not just in the United States, but in cooperation with other countries, other countries say, "Hey, like they did over a hundred years ago when they looked at what Lincoln had unleashed, we want to be like that. We don't want to be backward. We, we want to be strong, sovereign, industrial power." Um, if, if other countries get the idea, and you get some pretty powerful countries out there like Russia, India, China, Japan, who in different kinds of ways are getting the idea, or potentially could get the idea, the empire has always known, "We're toast." So when the United States revives the American system, that, you know, that is like sunlight to Dracula, and they, they got to drag the world back into darkness. So will they try again? I would be very surprised if they don't.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's really, uh, disheartening if, if you think about it. Um, but I'm glad they were not successful in this context, of course. Um, I think the average American out there just wants their basic needs to be taken care of, right? Like, essentially safe communities, a closed border, uh, you know, a budget that is handled properly at the local level so their kids can get quality education, etc. All these things. Um, and so what's the incentive? I, I know you called the Democrat Party the propaganda arm of this imperialistic system, but what, what's their incentive to essentially throw that, throw all of that on the back burner? I mean, these sanctuary cities, for an example, is, is what, what I'm getting at here. Um, that clearly contradicts those basic things. Why do you think they've gone so far? Or do you think they, they're just caught up, or they just have accepted it? Or do they really believe in, in this, uh, or being this propaganda arm, as, as you put it?
>> Well, you know, I, I think it's different for different, you know, different layers of the Democratic Party. I mean, you look at this political class in Washington D.C., they're just completely compromised, you know, pretty much all of them. And it's not just the Democrats. Yeah.
>> Um, but the Democrats are, are, are compromised, you know, more tightly for this particular narrative, uh, that they're pushing at this point. Um, you know, but part, some of it for some people, you know, there's that, that old phrase called the Stockholm Syndrome, you know, where, you know, where you're, you're captured, you know, you're a prisoner, you know, nothing else, and you begin to, you know, identify with your captors because mentally you see no way out. And mentally you're trying to figure out, "How am I going to mentally survive in this horrible system?" So, how do you get people out of that? You make clear to them there's a way out. I think that's what Spencer Pratt just did in Los Angeles, right? By, you know, by not accepting the narrative and, you know, and doing these devastating videos on social media, but also think of what he did in a bunch of them, you know, where he would show the
ladies in the spa or the suburban dads at the barbecue, and then suddenly one of them realizes, "Oh, the guy next to me is also for Spencer Pratt," you know? And you break this controlled environment where, you know, you you've been told, "This is what Everybody believes, every," and therefore you must believe it. You know, I think, I think what Pratt has done, I think he's done a great service for the whole nation, however the race ultimately comes out. But you have to break this, this environment.
Yeah. I keep coming back to Scott Bessant, which I find pretty funny because I've always looked at Treasury secretaries as the, you know, financial enforcement arm for this empire. And this guy comes along, and he certainly breaks the mold. He he has a phrase which, um, really struck me. He said, "The Democratic Party strategy is to compensate the loser." In other words, you put them in a system where you can't make it. Uh, that's what happened when you took away the factory jobs and the bluecollar jobs in the United States. You can't make it. So you throw money, welfare programs, drugs, entertainment, gambling, whatever you need to throw at them so that they will, they will live in a system which they think they have no control over.
And I think the more that we show people that system is rigged, it's not our system, you don't have to live there, we're going to create something new and better for you. I, I think you'll find the, the, the Democrats who are not completely compromised—and I'm sure there are some at the state and local level, and who knows, there might be one or two in Washington—I don't know. Um, you know, I, I think we might see their better nature come out at a certain point, but the, the existing Democratic Party, I mean, this is the most insane, psychotic thing I've ever seen.
I, I, I, I, I did work in Washington D.C. in the '70s and the '80s and the early '90s. I spent plenty of time on Capitol Hill, going to hearings, following the process, button holeing congressman and senators, and so on. What you've seen this week in terms of the way they treated the president's cabinet secretaries reminded me of the Salem witch trials. I mean, these people are just hardwired to be part of a psychological warfare propaganda machine at this point. And how many of them even know it, I don't know. But, you know, that, that's, that's what you're looking at. This has nothing to do with what happened this week in those hearings from an old hand, you know, who spent many, many times in hearings, testifying in hearings in the '70s and '80s where there were, where there were big policy disagreements. But what, what I, what you saw this week with these cabinet secretaries testifying, I, I've never seen anything like this.
>> Yeah. You know, I often tell my audience—and let me know if you agree with this—that Democrats are batshit crazy and the Republicans are...
>> I was going to say that. [laughter]
>> No, it's totally fine. Uh, and the Republican party is incompetent because the amount of executive orders coming from the president, I have not seen much of that actually codified. And when you brought up Spencer Pratt, this has been another of my criticisms. I would hope that the Republican party would take a page out of his book and learn from him. Um, because if Democrats are as crazy as we say they are, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to prevent them from regaining power? Um, and I, I, I'm, I'm sure eventually they will, but I'd like to delay that as, as much as we practically can. Do you see it the same way?
>> Yeah, I mean, I, I think, you know, you can't really talk about the Republican party, though. I mean, you have the MAGA movement, and then you have whatever else there is. And, you know, there's varying degrees in terms of how much the MAGA movement is controlling what in any particular state. You're in Texas, you have a Bush problem. Um, but, you know, I think what happened with the Bill Paxton victory shows that the MAGA movement is definitely, uh, pulling rank in Texas.
You know, in different states it's different in terms of the breakdown between MAGA, you know, people who are just sort of tied to the old way of doing things versus the what I call, well, the RINOs, or what I call Trumpos, TRINOs, Trumpers in name only. So, you know, it's, it's a, it's a moving object in terms of, you know, how the Republican party operates in any particular place.
I certainly hope Trump and the MAGA movement, and, you know, to the extent that his political machine is intervening into the midterms, which I think they're about to very much up their game and intervene strongly, I certainly hope they take a whole lot of pages from Spencer Plat Pratt's playbook because that was just brilliant. And it, it's proof of principle. I mean, you know, who knows what they're going to do with the remaining mail-in ballots, but for the moment, you got this guy in the runoff in Los Angeles of all places. Yeah.
>> So, it works.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Anywhere else, she would be finished, but, uh, because the way California is, she still has a chance to survive. Um, you also brought up another point, and let me know if you, maybe you can clarify this better than I can.
I often tell people that there is conservatives, uh, or there are conservatives, there are RINOs, as you put them, or TRINOs, you can also say that. Um, there are Christians, and, and so my, my point is, is the GOP, the people on the right, there are different groups here that have, um, different perceptions of how the country should be governed. Um, and so you're right that, um, when I said that, you know, the Republicans are incompetent, I'm really talking about the people in Congress. Um, but yeah, there, there is a difference there.
And so my question for you here is: one, do you see the, uh, differences there on the right in that way? And, um, two, do you think the country would benefit more if we had more outsiders who were running for office?
>> Oh, I think we need, I think we need a lot more outsiders, but I think they have to be qualified. Um, you know, that's where you kind of get into this conundrum where you say, "Why is Trump endorsing some of the people that he's endorsing?" Big one, of course, is Lindsey Graham. I mean, Trump is dealing with a kind of political calculus where he has to control, continue to control the Senate. So, you know, there's certain things he has to do, but, you know, I've seen it.
I'm active in the Michigan Republican Party. I work with activists all over the country. You know, you see this phenomenon where an outsider, you know, who's very well-intentioned, decides to throw his hat in the ring in an important race. You know, a race which is going to potentially determine which way your state's going to go, or are we going to keep control of the Senate or the House. And they, and, and they're people who do not yet have the backing of enough people to run a serious race because we're still in a world where you need a ton of money to run for federal office. You know, my husband's running for state legislature; you don't need a ton of money. You need some, but you don't need a ton. You cannot seriously run for Congress or Senate without a ton of money.
So, I understand why some well-intentioned people go out there and run. I mean, I've had friends who've done this to, quote, "get the ideas out there," but you, you, you, we're at a moment in history where what you need is honestly more Donald Trump's, uh, more people who, number one, are qualified because it's not enough to just be against what's going on. You see that in Britain right now. There's a lot of people who are against the destruction of their society and their culture and their economy, but they don't have a clue of how to actually run Britain in any way that it's other way than it's been run for a couple hundred years. And, you know, the same thing is true here.
So yes, you do need outsiders. I mean, but I consider, but you need outsiders with a certain level of competence and experience. I think the good example of an outsider is Bill Paxton. He obviously is not an insider. I mean, obviously served in office, but, you know, he was attacked and almost impeached and but stuck with Trump through the whole time. You need people with a certain quality of guts, but a certain competence in terms of what is it that Trump is trying to do, not just what we're all against.
So, you know, I, I, I work with people all over the country, and I know it's people get frustrated because they say, "Why didn't we get better candidates in this Senate primary or this House primary?" You know, "Why did we have, why did we end up with Trump maybe endorsing somebody who was not your preferred, you know, grassroots candidate?" Because you have to do a better job of recruiting and educating not only candidates but your fellow citizens to understand what the real issue is. So from my standpoint, the real definition of an outsider, somebody who understands the American system and is going to fight for it. That's the kind of outsider I want.
>> Yeah. Some, yeah. Definitely someone who's going to execute, not just talk a bunch of, you know, talking points, as we are aware today.
>> That button is yours. Yeah, exactly. All right. So, this brings us to, uh, the final, uh, question here. In your studies, uh, and up to this point, everything you've been able to gather and communicate, um, and the work you're doing with the Per Prometheian action, um, what is one thing you would encourage Americans who are concerned about the direction of the country? What is the one thing that they should be focused on, because there's a lot out there? But what if there would, yeah, there, there would be one thing, where, where should they start?
>> I think they have, people need to start looking at what it is this administration is actually doing with the economy. This is revolutionary. You know, people say, "I voted for the Epstein files to be released. I voted for Purple Walks. I voted for this. I voted for an economic revolution, and I think I'm getting one."
So when, and, and I say to people, my mental health recommendation is: stop doomcrolling and go watch a cabinet meeting or go watch a speech by Pete Hegsth or Marco Rubio or any of these cabinet members, or go to the White House website and see what they're doing economically. See what they've actually accomplished so far in terms of reshoring our manufacturing and laying the foundation for an actual economic renaissance. But pay attention to what they're actually doing and saying as opposed to what somebody on X says they're doing and saying and reacting to that. That's the one thing that I would say, just, you know, and you may disagree with what they're doing and saying, but at least you're going to be responding to what they're actually doing and saying.
And I think from the standpoint of turning the United States back into an economically sovereign nation where again, as I said at the outset, my gold standard is a nation where one bluecollar income can raise a family of five or six. That's my gold standard. That's what I think this administration is driving for. And I think people should pay a little bit of attention to see how we're getting there.
>> Yeah. No, I really appreciate that, uh, uh, Susan. And, and, and part of the reason why that's a careful reminder for people who are watching is because if you're on the internet long enough, it can get really noisy, and it's pretty obvious what the noise is right now and how much of it has essentially blinded people from a lot of the good things this administration has done.
Just being objectively fair, I mean, closing the border, uh, in the way that he did, cracking down on crime. I mean, deploying federal resources to city, when's the last time we've seen something like that at that level? Uh, and, and so there, there's a lot of good stuff. Drug costs, for an example, as well. Um, so, uh, Susan, I appreciate your, your time for being on the show. We're going to link your information below this video, of course. Uh, but, uh, thank you so much.
>> Well, thank you for having me. Great discussion. Absolute.