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

Susan Kokinda of Prometheian Action joins Patrick Bet-David to expose what nobody is saying - Trump's war with Iran is actually a 200-year war against the British Empire. Susan was on the RFK campaign when he was assassinated in 1968 and at GW Hospital when Reagan was shot in 1981, and she's spent decades tracking the hidden imperial system behind it all. In this interview she breaks down how the City of London has been charging Americans a hidden terror tax on every gallon of gas, why Trump's Iran blockade is really about destroying Britain's 300-year oil monopoly, how British Intelligence engineered the MAGA civil war through Tucker Carlson and Qatar's billions, why Mueller prosecuted LaRouche for the same reason the Deep State came after Trump, and why Putin is now blaming Britain - not China, not America - for every war being fought today. This is the conversation that connects every dot from the JFK assassination to the Iran deal to the globalist takedown of America. ---------- 👍 LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE! Ⓜ️ MINNECT WITH SUSAN: https://bit.ly/4mYQfRX 🎥 PROMETHEAN ACTION'S YOUTUBE: https://bit.ly/4uckBTk 🚀 PROMETHEAN ACTION'S WEBSITE: https://bit.ly/4eeEvs4 🦁 THE VAULT 2026: AUG 31ST TO SEPT 1ST: https://bit.ly/4mZdLhD Ⓜ️ PBD PODCAST CIRCLES: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4mAWQAP⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/4mAWQAP 👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTING: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4lzQph2⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/4lzQph2 🥃 BOARDROOM CIGAR LOUNGE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4pzLEXj⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/4pzLEXj 🇰 KALSHI: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://kalshi.com/pbd⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ http://kalshi.com/pbd⁠ 💬 TEXT US: Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time! ABOUT US:Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  I've never seen anything like this.

• 0:02Patrick Bet-David?

  What do you mean by that?

• 0:04Speaker 00

  In terms of competence, coherence, singularity of purpose.

• 0:11Patrick Bet-David?

  How much of this comes down to money? How much of it comes down to power? And how much of it is, if you've got money, you've got the power anyway. So how do you view what they're solving for long term?

• 0:21Speaker 00

  They really believe that we're no better than animals. They just happen to have bluer blood, so they get to run us.

• 0:28Patrick Bet-David?

  What I'm trying to figure out is, who's influencing who? Who's elevating who? Who has control over who?

• 0:36Speaker 00

  These binaries are out there to keep you from looking at, again, what's generating the shadows on the wall.

• 0:43Patrick Bet-David?

  I have a very, very hard time thinking Britain has the same kind of control and influence like they did before.

• 0:49Speaker 00

  I think for long term, it's even more evil. I mean, they use the money, they use the power. But ultimately, it comes down to an image of man.

• 1:04Patrick Bet-David?

  Today, we have a special guest with us, Susan Kokinda from Promethean Action, whom I get text messages of from my sister saying, you have to see what she has to say. So Susan, it's great to have you here on the podcast.

• 1:19Speaker 00

  Thanks for having me.

• 1:20Patrick Bet-David?

  So for some people who don't know, can we just qualify one thing that you're not? Right? Because, you know, some people may look at you and say, is this Q from James Bond? Can you just qualify that you're not Q from James Bond? It's very important.

• 1:35Speaker 00

  I'm definitely not Q.

• 1:36Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, well, thank you for doing that, because we don't want, you know, people to go out there, start saying, why is Pat talking to Q from James Bond? But your analysis, the way you break things down, very, very interesting, very different. And, and, you know, your story's very unique, because you were, is it true that you were at RFK Senior's campaign? You were working with them in 1968? And you were there when the assassination happened, working with the campaign? Not physically there, but you were on the campaign? As well as at the White House press pool at GW Hospital in 1981? After Ronald Reagan, the assassination attempt at the same hotel that the president just had the attempt a few days ago? Are those two true, that you were there at those two events?

• 2:21Speaker 00

  That's true. I was in San Francisco with the campaign in 1968. And then when the president was shot in 1981, I was covering a hearing on Capitol Hill. And all of a sudden, I got the call, head over to GW Hospital and find out what's happening. So, yes, I was there for both.

• 2:39Patrick Bet-David?

  Now, at the time, where was you, where were you at politically? What was your cause? Because, you know, was it, I want to help America because of these three issues? What was important to you at the time, both in 68 as well as 81?

• 2:54Speaker 00

  Really, both was the same thing, which is that I sensed even at the young age, which I was then in 1968, I sensed that something had gone very wrong. Obviously with the assassination of JFK, that there was a change in direction in the country. And I didn't understand what it was early. But I knew there was just something that was going on that was taking us in a direction that was different, which had characterized especially the early JFK period, which was progress, which was science, which was technology. You know, I was a child of the space program. I wanted to be an astronaut. And somehow, all of that began to change.

• 3:36Speaker 00

  You began to see the emergence of the rock, drug, sex counterculture, which just seemed very strange to me. You know, this kind of hedonistic approach as opposed to this sense that the nation has a mission. And you should devote yourself to a mission, not to what makes you feel good. So, you know, again, it was unformed for a while. But then, as I become more politically attuned and astute, you know, I began to dig more deeply into what is causing this? And, you know, by the time I was in Washington DC in 1981, it was pretty clear that there was a deeper historical fight going on than I think most people were aware of. And what was-

• 4:21Speaker 00

  And I think they are now with Donald Trump. Now you see the globalists. Now you see that there's, it's more than the newspaper headlines. It's more than the way the mainstream media portrays things.

• 4:31Patrick Bet-David?

  So, what's different and what's the same?

• 4:35Speaker 00

  From when? What's different?

• 4:37Patrick Bet-David?

  Give me both of them. From 6881, what's different from today with President Trump with the three different assassination attempts he's had in 68 and in 81?

• 4:48Speaker 00

  Very, very different. I mean, because, look, the MAGA movement has gone through a series, shall we say, of walls of fire. You know, they went through COVID, they went through the stolen election, they went through J6, they went through the, you know, the Butler assassination. I think there's a layer of the American population which has really grown up, you know, which is increasingly looking behind the curtain and saying, this stuff just isn't random. You know, it's like lone assassins. I mean, give me a break. You know, people are, are, are ready to deep, dive more deeply into it. At one, at one of my friends that I do podcasts with, Blaine Holt says, you know, if we were

• 5:33Speaker 00

  talking about the things we're talking about today, people would be putting, back then, people would be putting tin foil hats on us. But now you've got millions, if not tens of millions of people, thinking more deeply about what is actually driving these forces. And again, you want to make the comparison, look at the comparison between how people have to live today and how people lived, say, in the middle 1960s. In the middle 1960s, a blue collar income, like here in Detroit, could raise a family of five or six comfortably, one income, and, and have the confidence that your children

• 6:15Speaker 00

  would have a better life than you did if they worked hard. You know, what have we gone through since NAFTA, since the 2008 bailouts, and everything that comes with that globalist system? You need three or four incomes and you still can't make ends meet. You know, you're, you're, you're, you're giving half your income to daycare because mom has to work two jobs and dad has to work three jobs. And I think the support for Donald Trump, especially his... His recorded victories in 2016 and 2024 were, you know, a very clear response from a broad swath of the American population, you know, including people who didn't use to

• 6:57Speaker 00

  vote Republican, like blue collar workers here in Michigan, who said, I don't want to live like this any longer. You know, I want, I want that world where, you know, you've got progress, where you've got stability, where you've got opportunity, and you don't have to scramble, you know, like a rat to figure out how to get to the end of the maze. So I, I think that's sort of the foundation of the fact that that then opens a lot of people's minds to the fact that there's a bigger picture here. And I, I always go back to a quote from Scott Besson, uh, where he gave an interview about, it was actually about a year ago. Um, and he said, look, the Democratic Party is to come, the Democratic

• 7:36Speaker 00

  Party's strategy is to compensate the loser. He said, but I don't think the lower 50% are losers. I think it's, I think they're winners, but the system is broken and we're going to fix the system. And I think that's extremely important because once people realize that it's systemic, the problems that have ruined their lives or made their lives incredibly difficult, it's an entire system. It's not their fault. It's an entire system and this administration is committed to changing it. So it, you know, it creates a different kind of environment, I think, where people can think more deeply. Okay. Well, what was wrong with the old system? And what is it that President Trump is trying

• 8:21Speaker 00

  to do? That's what we do at Promethean Action. We try and sort of translate for people. Hey, here's something that looks new. It's frankly not, it used to be called the American system, but here's what the president is doing. And it actually is transformational. And maybe you need to calm down and hold on while this transformation takes place.

• 8:43Patrick Bet-David?

  Now, question for you, that's very interesting when you're breaking that down. And I want to go a little bit deeper into that as well, but a lot of times today, if you were to look at different podcasters or influencers, if you watch mainstream media, the enemy is going to be, you know, China or Qatar or Russia, right? That's going to be the enemy that, I'm not even Qatar, it's more going to be China or Russia. If you look at podcasters, streamers, independent content creators, you will hear Israel and you'll hear Qatar. But when you listen to you, you say Britain. Even one of the videos you recently did, you said the hidden hand behind Trump's assassination attempt, and it goes to Britain. And no one is saying that.

• 9:28Patrick Bet-David?

  So, nobody is even talking about Britain, but you are. Tell us why Britain? Why, why are you thinking Britain's behind the third assassination attempt?

• 9:38Speaker 00

  Well, if, if you actually look at the history of assassination attempts in the United States, and we actually have an ebook on the Promethean Action website, which is entitled, It Is The British Who Murder Our Presidents. And if you look at President Trump's comments after the assassination, both in the press briefing and then in the outtakes from the 60 Minutes show, you know, he says it's only consequential presidents who get assassinated or there are attempts. And he cites Abraham Lincoln and he cites William McKinley. And that's extremely important, because those are the, the probably the most important American system presidents in our history. Now, why do I say that when you asked me about the British?

• 10:20Speaker 00

  Because if you look at the 19th century and, you know, our, our own, the, the decades of our own founding, there were two systems in the world. And it wasn't capitalism or communism. That didn't, those phrases didn't even come along till Karl Marx. The two systems in the world were the American system versus the British imperial system. And the British imperial system was based on power, money, perpetual wars, controlling resources, keeping countries backward so that they could extract raw materials or whatever from them, it was based on free trade. And the American system was based on a different set of principles,

• 11:04Speaker 00

  which is that your economy is not measured by money. Your economy is measured by what are you producing? Are you advancing? Is your population getting healthier? Is it getting more productive? Is it getting more prosperous? Does it have more opportunities? And is that a durable policy that is going to continue in the future? Those were the two systems. And by the end of the 19th century, the American system was really the wonder of the world. You had Russia, China, Japan, Germany, France. You had leaders in all of those countries explicitly following the American system. Now, you know, I ask your viewers to think. Were you ever taught the American system in school?

• 11:49Speaker 00

  Of course not. It's been written out. Why? Because the British imperial system recognized it was a threat. One of the things they did is they assassinated our presidents, like Lincoln, like Garfield, like McKinley, by creating an environment, creating anarchists, creating radicals, where you don't necessarily have to, you know, give them the, you know, the marching orders directly, but you create an environment in which people are out there, ready to take out a president. Does that sound familiar? That, you know, that's the environment that we're in today. But the purpose of it, the reason for it, was to crush the American system from spreading.

• 12:33Speaker 00

  Because the American system is based on Donald Trump's stated policies. I want a world of sovereign nations, working with each other as individual nations, working out their differences, but based on actual economic development. And if you have a world of sovereign nations, then this globalist financier parasite, which is simply a modern day version of the British Empire, is not going to function. And so they have a kind of feral, you know, hatred of American system policies. That's where it comes from. Then, once you sort of put yourself in that setting of this fight between the two systems in the world, you discover a whole lot.

• 13:18Speaker 00

  You know, if you look more carefully at the role of British intelligence, British policy throughout the 20th century, you know, let's just take the crisis in the Mideast. Who created the Muslim Brotherhood? That was a direct operation from British intelligence in the 1920s. You know, and you, you look at a whole array of different policies, you simply start pulling the string, you know, where, where you're no longer blacking out this idea that there is a British imperial system still functioning. Once you entertain that hypothesis and you start looking at the world, a lot of things seem to make sense, which is why I think a lot of people respond to our, our work by

• 14:00Speaker 00

  saying, oh my gosh, you've put the pieces together for me.

• 14:04Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 14:33Speaker 03

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid and risked 350,000 Virginians healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 15:03Speaker 04

  Kayak searches and compares hundreds of travel sites. But unless I repeat the word kayak, Kayak thinks you won't remember that. So Kayak asked me to say kayak as many times as possible. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak, kayak, kayak. Kayak. Search and compare travel deals with Kayak. Got that right.

• 15:24Patrick Bet-David?

  Can you go a little bit deeper on the Muslim Brotherhood being started by the Brits in the 20s?

• 15:28Speaker 00

  Well, you even, you know, you can go back even to the 19th century. I mean, if you look at the question of radical and political Islam, you'll find the hand of the British all over it. I mean, one of the more famous figures in this, this is gets into the 20th century is Lawrence of Arabia, you know, T E Lawrence, who was British intelligence. Um, I can't remember his first name, Kim Philby, the famous, you know, uh, double, triple agent spy in Britain. His father was one of the key handlers of these kinds of networks in the Mideast. Uh, in an earlier period in the 19th century, the British pro-council of Egypt,

• 16:10Speaker 00

  uh, I think it was Lord Cromer, but he was, he was a bearing from the bearing bank. He was one of the people who built up political radical Islam. And it was always used as a tool against the nationalist forces in countries like Egypt and elsewhere, who were trying to develop independent, economically strong nations, people like Nassar, people like Mubarak, for example. Um, so, I mean, there's, there have been some excellent books written on this. Um, uh, one called The Devil's Game by Robert Dreyfus. And the other one, whose name escapes me at the moment, but it's called Secret Agents,

• 16:51Speaker 00

  where they go in depth into the role of British intelligence in creating radical and political Islam, which then becomes a very convenient tool for them.

• 17:01Patrick Bet-David?

  Now, how much, when you say the Brits, are you saying the royal family? How much is it the bankers? How much is it the wealth? How much is the Rothschild? Who specifically was playing these games? We know the story of what Rothschilds did during war to say, hey, you know, Napoleon is losing the war and then everybody started selling off the bonds and they came in, they 10x their fortune overnight. So we know those games they played to create a lot of wealth. This is before there was regulation. But when you say the Brits, who specifically are you saying has the power to do some of these assassination attempts? Is it the money or is it more politics or royalty?

• 17:37Speaker 00

  It's like a corporation, you know, and everybody plays their part. In my show yesterday, I referenced a new book, which has just conveniently come out, you know, just as King Charles is arriving in Washington DC. You referenced it, it's entitled, "Queen Elizabeth and Her Presidents: The Hidden Hand Behind History." And the author documents, Queen Elizabeth was more thoroughly briefed with daily intelligence briefings, national security briefings. She was on top of the nuclear contingencies. You can bet she had, you know, her hands all over the five, there it is, the Five Eyes operation.

• 18:20Speaker 00

  And this author, you know, I haven't read the book yet, I've just read the blurbs and watched a couple of interviews because I just discovered it two days ago. But, you know, I don't know if this author is saying this is a good thing, or she's neutral, you know, I don't know the particular political take in terms of this. But she describes how the monarchy uses what they call "soft power" to influence presidents. But then, yes, you have the City of London. You have the financial power that's embedded in the City of London. And, you know, this is one of the things which I think illuminates what the Iran conflict is all about. Because the City of London, Lloyds of London, the, you know, the people who set the oil

• 19:04Speaker 00

  prices with Brent crude, which is set in London and has nothing to do with the delivery of a barrel of oil, you know, it's just speculation. They've used the instability, the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, to extract what the president's trade advisor, Peter Navarro, calls a terror premium, basically a terror tax. Where the, if you look at the price of a gallon of oil here in the United States, about 20% of that comes from the pricing from the Brent futures market, which is in London, which has nothing to do with the physical production of oil, unlike, you know, West Texas pricing. And it has to do with the insurance of Lloyds of London, which basically had a monopoly

• 19:49Speaker 00

  prior to this. So that's sort of the financial end of the thing. Then you get the intelligence side of things, which is MI6 and MI5, which are pretty legendary. And which, you know, I think up until the Trump administration, we're pretty much joined at the hip with the CIA. And then you have much more of the soft power, which is the media, you know, and the way that they shape the political environment. And, and one of the things that, that, that this British elite have mastered and, and, you know, been masters of for decades is psychological warfare.

• 20:28Speaker 00

  You know, the way that they, they shape narratives, the way that they, well, look at the war going on inside MAGA from the people who used to be MAGA, you know, like Tucker Carlson and MTG and others, you know, this is just pure psychological manipulation in order to divert the MAGA movement from the task at hand, which is that everything that this administration is doing strategically and economically is aimed at breaking the power of this modern day British empire, or what this administration bluntly says is the globalist system. This is big.

• 21:07Speaker 00

  I mean, the last president who seriously threatened the global reach of this imperial system was William McKinley. Now, you know, if John Kennedy had lived long enough, might, might that have been a serious threat? Probably. But what the president is doing right now, especially with this cabinet, this, this team is extraordinary. And I always tell people, you know, turn off your social media feed and just watch the cabinet meetings. Read the executive orders. Read the presidential directives. Pay attention to what they're actually saying and doing. It is historic and they want you diverted. You know, is it Israel or is it Qatar? You know, that, that is not the issue.

• 21:51Speaker 00

  The issue is these two systems before the world.

• 21:53Patrick Bet-David?

  Wow. I mean, you have to know, if you say that to the average consumer of content on social media today, no one's pointing at the Brits. So if you're saying Tucker and MTG and, and others, what, how would the Brits get a hold of them? How would MI6 do that? What would be their methods? I mean, that's a, you know, I, I don't see any connection there, but maybe you're seeing something that we're not.

• 22:20Speaker 00

  Well, I think it's more of this question of you create a system.

• 22:23Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay.

• 22:24Speaker 00

  You know, which is the system where people get paid, where they get influence, where, you know, they, you know, they live their lives. You create that, you know, sometimes I compare it to Stockholm syndrome. You know, where, you know, you, you've lived in this system your whole life. If you buck the system, you're gonna lose money, you're gonna lose your job. I mean, with Tucker, honestly, I think Tucker was terrified after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. You know, you, you, you also play on people's psychological vulnerabilities. So again, it's not like you, you get a phone call from, you know, the head of MI6 saying, Tucker, this is what you're going to say today. That's not the way it works. You know, you, you create a system that people have lived in for so long.

• 23:09Patrick Bet-David?

  I'm, I'm actually really curious how it works because if, let's just say the Brits have been doing this the longest, you have to know that automatically others are gonna duplicate what they're doing. So, you know, Russia's gonna be paying attention, China's gonna be paying attention, Qatar's gonna be paying attention. You know, everybody else is gonna be paying attention at the propaganda game that Brits have played. And the Brits played it against Iran as well. So Iranians are paying attention to see what they're doing. So, but what is the playbook? If, if you were to say the playbook of doing, first you do this, then you do this, then you do this, then you do this, what would the method be?

• 23:42Speaker 00

  Well, the method is to keep people sort of in the world of perceptions, where all, all you're doing is just reacting to what, you know, the, the narrative is, the institutions. I mean, obviously, one of the critical elements in the United States is the mainstream media. You know, completely controlled by, by the globalists. And again, it doesn't have to be a direct tie to the city of London, although a lot of times if you dig deep enough, you'll find it. But it's, it's to the powerful, what the president has called global financier elite. Well, they run the mainstream media. You know, they, they run entertainment. Um, entertainment and culture is a big part of this. You know, again, because it's, it's, once you shape how people think.

• 24:29Speaker 00

  Then you don't have to go in and specifically say, "Well, then, think this, think this, think this." You've got them trapped in a world where all you're looking at is the shadows on the wall. And that's what the media does, that's what the culture does, and so on. They create the shadows on the wall, and all you do is react to the shadows. What we do, and what I'm pretty sure some people in the administration must understand, because they wouldn't be doing the kinds of things they're doing strategically and economically, is you're looking at what's generating the shadows. And that is this fight between these two systems. You mentioned the Russians. They get it.

• 25:12Speaker 00

  Read what the Russians say about who's keeping the war with Ukraine going. You know, they're very clear. It's not only the Europeans, it's specifically the British. They are very, very clear that it is the British who are keeping this going. They're no longer saying the United States is the great war monger. I mean, yeah, you have a few hot heads in Russia who still say that. But the official, you know, Putin, the people who speak for President Putin, they're not pointing the finger at the United States any longer. They're pointing the finger at the British. You know, and then in the 19th century, this had a name, and they're still playing it. It was called the Great Game. And the Great Game was to make sure that nations stay pitted against each other, constantly

• 25:53Speaker 00

  fighting, so that the imperial game masters at the top could continue to play their games. There you go. The elements of the Great Game, which Rudyard Kipling outlined in Kim. And, you know, Central Asia has been, you know, Afghanistan, you know, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, the Mideast, all of this. You look at the way the British, and the French, but primarily the British, rewrote the map after the Ottoman Empire broke up after World War I. It was to keep these, you know, it was, they divided countries up in the craziest ways that made no sense in terms of the different religious, or ethnic, or political groupings.

• 26:38Speaker 00

  They shattered it in such a way, it would always be a cockpit for war. And that's how they do it. You mentioned Iran. I mean, it's sort of like the classic case. You had a nationalist leader, Mossadegh, who nationalized the oil industry. Well, believe me, the British Empire was not going to tolerate that. So he was overthrown and the Shah was put in. And then at a certain point, you know, the Shah began operating from the standpoint of what is good for Iran. He wanted to use the oil revenues to build nuclear power, to actually develop the country as a modern nation. So he gets overthrown. You know, the, you know, the British are really quite, yeah, you meant Kermit Roosevelt was in on that.

• 27:18Speaker 00

  And if you actually look at the history, Eisenhower was not exactly happy when he realized what was going on there. Because Eisenhower was somebody who actually had an American outlook, which is why he stopped the British and the French from taking the Suez Canal in 1956. But, you know, again, when, when you, when you sort of just shift the way you look at the world from these binaries, you know, communism versus capitalism, the West versus Islam, right versus left, these binaries. These binaries are out there to keep you from looking at, again, what's generating the shadows on the wall. And it's this historic fight between imperialism

• 28:00Speaker 00

  and the idea that nations and people have the right to develop for the betterment of the nation and the people, not for the betterment of some global financier elite.

• 28:12Patrick Bet-David?

  So you, you don't, you don't look at it right now. That's interesting because it's globalist versus, you know, what we're trying to do, right? So you don't, you don't look at it as, you know, West versus Islam. You're not looking at us Qatar as the rest. That's just a distraction to you. You know, you, you, how much of this, you, you, to simplify to the average person, how much of this comes down to money? How much of it comes down to power? And how much of it is, if you got money, you got the power anyway. So how do you view what they're solving for long term?

• 28:41Speaker 00

  Well, I think for long term, it's even more evil. I mean, they use the money, they use the power. But ultimately, it comes down to an image of man. I mean, if you go back through history, what do you find with these very evil imperial systems? They really believe that we're no better than animals. They just happen to have bluer blood, so they get to run us. But, you know, they want a world in which people are stupid and backward, so that they can control them and they can loot them. And, you know, so they don't want people ultimately educated, independent, sovereign. That's what they don't like. That's why, that's why they feared the American system so much. Because while obviously this question of the image of man, man in the image of the Creator,

• 29:27Speaker 00

  as opposed to, you know, man is simply an animal to be manipulated by his senses, which by the way, is the basis of all of British liberal philosophy. You know, John Locke, Thomas Hume, John Stuart Mill. It's all based on the idea that we know the world only through our senses, not our minds. And so they create institutions to keep us trapped in that kind of thing. But that image, the image of man is man in the image of the Creator. Obviously, that's been around since the time of Christ and in some respects in, well, actually in very real respects in earlier religions and movements. But what do you get with the American Revolution? You actually get an economic system based on the idea

• 30:11Speaker 00

  that the productive powers of a nation is, is the human mind, is human creativity. That, that, that was a breakthrough to actually, that was Hamilton's ideas. And that actually forms the basis of a completely different kind of way of organizing your society, where you're maximizing creativity. You're not maximizing money.

• 30:35Speaker 00

  So yeah, the empire uses power. They use money. They use ideologies. They use wars. They use all of these things, but it's for the purpose of keeping their system protected from upstart sovereign nations who are likely to challenge them mortally if they get off their, if they get off the ground. And when, again, I go back to the end of the 19th century, where this idea of the American system was consciously understood in many countries. Japan's Meiji Restoration was based on the American system. Count Sergey Vitale,

• 31:16Speaker 00

  the last economic advisor for the last czar in Russia, was a student of the American system. There were people in Italy, in France, in Germany, who were students of the American system by name. And people just have to ask themselves the question, well, this is what was dominating the 19th century. How come I've never heard of it? Because the British rewrote our history.

• 31:41Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed Sponsored Jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed Sponsored Jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.

• 32:10Speaker 03

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPact.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 32:41Patrick Bet-David?

  Because the British rewrote our history. Okay, so when you're going to the Brits rewriting history, King Charles is going to be coming in town. And when you go and you look at stuff with King Charles, his history, he's a very unique, you know, history on what things he's done, his, his, you know, it's just nasty. Diana, you got him taking money from Qatar, 3.2 million dollars documented saying that money was given to me when he was a prince to go to a charity. And his affection to Islam and he's how complimentary there, he'll speak on that day Ramadan, but not on Easter. What role, because what I'm trying to figure out is, who's influencing who, who's elevating who, who has control over who?

• 33:25Patrick Bet-David?

  Some will say, you know, the Israel elites are controlling politics in America and through that they're getting things done elsewhere, right? You'll hear the criticism there. Some will say Qatar right now, you saw the number 6.3 billion dollars they put into US universities, officially more than China, but China's at like 5.5 billion, Qatar's number one at 6.3 billion. And then, you know, you'll see China by controlling manufacturing that we learned during COVID, oh my God, we are so reliant on China, they controlled it in a completely different way. We have the strongest military. But who is, who is really, because I have a very, very hard time thinking Britain has the same kind of control and influence like they did before. I have a hard time buying that, but I'm always open to being wrong. So

• 34:10Patrick Bet-David?

  I just want to know with King Charles and influence, is Qatar and them influencing him? Or is it the other way around?

• 34:17Speaker 00

  Oh, I think it, I think it's the other way around. Again, because if you go back and you look at some of this history, Charles in particular, was a big supporter of the Saudis, and I would say in their earlier pre-Trump incarnation, where the Saudis were notoriously supporting Muslim extremism, especially the whole Wahhabite side of things. You look at the history of Wahhabism, and again, this is another case where you go back to the 19th century or the 20th century, how did the Saudi family end up being the family that was ruling everything? Because that was not a, that was not a done deal at the beginning of the, at the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century.

• 35:01Speaker 00

  Straight British intelligence. I mean, again, that's documented by some of the books that I referenced earlier. But what you have today, and that's sort of where you see the Charles question. And yeah, he's been a major supporter of, you know, setting up Islamic centers. And again, I'm not doing this from the, I'm not, I'm not assessing this from the standpoint of Islam bad, West good. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of what the British created in terms of political radical Islam to use as a tool to keep the world divided. So, you know, think for example, the fall of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the, at the beginning of the 1990s.

• 35:46Speaker 00

  All of a sudden, you know, we no longer have the communist boogeyman from the standpoint of the Soviet Union as the way of dividing the world. Samuel P. Huntington, who's, who's, you know, an author who, you know, has got extensive ties to British institutions and British intelligence and so on. What does he do? He writes The Clash of Civilizations. All right. Now, the dividing line in the world is the West versus Islam. Now, what Samuel P. Huntington isn't going to tell you is everything he's attacking in terms of Islam, which is dangerous, is this particularly created political radical Islam, which the British Empire has its hands all over.

• 36:31Speaker 00

  So that is the game that the British have played. Now, Donald Trump, I think, has judoed a lot because unlike the way the British approached, say, the Mideast, you know, the way British intelligence, you know, played a major role in shaping the policies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar. And again, in terms of the king, I mean, I think you have different levels in terms of competence of monarchs. I think Queen Elizabeth was extremely competent, extremely intelligent. I'm not sure how far down Charles falls on that rating system, but I don't think he's quite as, quite at the level of his mother. But that doesn't mean, you know, he's, he's, he doesn't have his hands in a lot of things.

• 37:15Speaker 00

  But that's sort of been the role, the relationship between the British and these particular movements and tendencies in the Mideast. But along comes Donald Trump. And remember what his first administration, where he really didn't have control of a lot, which I think he discovered pretty quickly. But in his first administration, what was his first foreign visit? It was to Saudi Arabia. That was highly unusual. And other Gulf states. But he basically laid down the law to the Saudis. And he said, you're going to stop your support for Islamic fundamentalism, for ISIS, for Al Qaeda, and so on. And they did.

• 37:59Speaker 00

  And he basically said, we're going to have a different relationship. You know, you don't have to now only be a pawn of these imperial forces, which you've largely been. Now you can start to develop as a sovereign nation. And we're going to work with you from that standpoint. And then that was the basis on which he could then move on to the Abraham Accords. I mean, Saudi Arabia hasn't signed them yet. They were on the verge of before October 7. You know, but where he started with other Gulf states, other nations and say, you're no longer pieces on the imperial chessboard. You're a sovereign nation. I'm going to treat you that way. Let's work out trade deals which mutually benefit us.

• 38:42Speaker 00

  Not where you're just a gas station for, you know, British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell. We're going to work out nation to nation economic deals which are going to help your nations. And people started, nations started to buy into that. And, you know, then he wasn't able to finish it with his first term, came back with his second term. And again, you know, all the reports are, Saudi Arabia was very close to joining the Abraham Accords, which means you recognize Israel. And then October 7 happened. You know, and everything we've seen play out since then. But look at the response of the Gulf nations to the Iran conflict.

• 39:25Speaker 00

  They're not on Iran's side any longer. Whether they wanted to be or whether they felt they had no choice, you know, because of this crazy, you know, Mueller-run, IRGC-run regime. Now they say, all right, there's a different world we can have something to do with. And essentially, they're lining up with the United States against the insanity in Iran and creating a completely different environment. So, you know, again, when you look at what the president and his team have done from the standpoint of stopping the great game, you know, stopping this imperial manipulation, which especially in the Mideast, has given us perpetual wars,

• 40:09Speaker 00

  and saying, no, we're not going to do that any longer. And, you know, it takes time. You have to take pieces off the chessboard to stop this. But I think that's what this administration is doing. And it's completely contrary to the policy of the British, which is why the British and the rest of the European Union didn't support what the president is doing in Iran.

• 40:30Patrick Bet-David?

  But don't you think you can't, don't you think Britain's gotten weaker and weaker and weaker? Don't you think when you see their influence, their wealth, you know, the immigration that they've opened up, the crime, you know, they no longer are seen by the world the way they did maybe 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago, you know, like?

• 40:52Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, you can take that back 100 years because that was the whole point of the pivot. When the British recognized that they were no longer a match for the United States, you know, coming out of the Civil War, we weren't destroyed. People should look at the hand of the British in terms of the Confederacy, the reintroduction of the slave system and all of that. We weren't destroyed after the Civil War. Lincoln, despite his assassination in 1865, had set into motion

• 41:24Speaker 00

  The revival of the American system of political economy. By the time we had the 1876 centennial exhibition, we were the wonder of the world in terms of what we were doing with industry and so on. So what did they do? They started assassinating our presidents and then they started corrupting our institutions. So by the time of the turn of the 20th century, you have the British explicitly outlining people like Cecil Rhodes and the Rhodes Scholarship or the British Round Table explicitly saying, "We have to bring the United States back under our way of doing things." So that for most of the, for all of, almost all of the 20th century, not all of it, but for a large part of the 20th century,

• 42:09Speaker 00

  we were the dumb giant to their policy. So they don't have to be strong. They don't have to have a strong military. In fact, the House of Lords just published an extremely important report where they review the US-British relationship. And they also premiered it at Chatham House, which is their, you know, primary think tank. And a number of the Lords were very, very clear that we have benefited by this system that we set up, but this system only exists because the United States enforced it. They say that. Yeah, that's, that's the report.

• 42:53Speaker 00

  Or that's the Chatham House forum, which was just last week. But throughout, they admit, "We, we couldn't enforce this system without the United States basically doing it for us." So they don't have to be strong. They just needed us going along. And especially with President Trump's second term, they ain't getting it. We're not going along. So, you know, they sent King Charles over for his charm offensive, which I don't think means much.

• 43:24Patrick Bet-David?

  What, what do you think happened? Because the first term, the president seemed like he was trying to do things, but it wasn't fully creating momentum. What do you think happened on the, the, the break that he had for four years when Biden came in? I wonder what adjustments you think he made to his approach? Because you know he was determined to get back in there. Because everybody that was asking him. Are you gonna run again? He said, yes. He says, I've never had a more exciting job than this one. I have to get back into. He really wanted to get back to becoming a president again. It wasn't like he was contemplating not doing it. His words. What changed with them? What adjustments you think he made?

• 44:04Patrick Bet-David?

  Did he go from thinking who was the enemy in 2016 to realizing that's not really the enemy? This is the enemy because on the second term that he's had, his sequencing has been very interesting. He first gets Canal, Panama Canal. No, he first gets Venezuela. Then he goes and finds a way for Panama's president to turn against China to say, CK cannot have this control of these two ports. And then he goes and attacks Iran. And then what changed? What do you think changed? Did he figure out something? You think he realized who the enemy was on the second term versus the first term?

• 44:42Speaker 00

  I think he always had a kind of general idea. I mean, you know, I'm not going to venture too far in terms of what he knows and what he doesn't know because I don't know what he knows and what he doesn't know. What I see is the effects of what he does. And I think one of the things that happened in the first term is, you know, he was just hit across the face with how evil and how deep these institutional forces were. You know, how much does he understand their origin? I have absolutely no idea. But I look at the way that, as you say, this second term has been completely different. And I think, you know, once he recognized what COVID was,

• 45:25Speaker 00

  once he saw what happened on J6, he saw the steal. Then, of course, you get the assassination attempt in Butler. But I think, you know, he got a much deeper understanding of how evil, what it is he was up against. You know, how much, again, the history is there. I can't believe that. Somewhere in this, in this, you know, in this administration, you don't have some very deep institutional knowledge of what you're up against because you don't make the changes that this administration is making by accident randomly.

• 46:07Patrick Bet-David?

  That's, I agree.

• 46:08Speaker 00

  You know, you don't revive the American system randomly. And I, I should reference the fact that Jameson Greer, the trade ambassador, when he went to Davos, he gave an amazing speech. His speech was entitled, "The American System That Nobody Knows About." And he literally went through Alexander Hamilton and how the American system had been the economic philosophy, which guided this country in the 19th century and made it great. So there, there are people who know this kind of hidden history, which we're all supposed to forget about, you know, so we all just sit there and react to the shadows on the wall. So, you know, who has the deeper institutional, historical knowledge? I don't know. But somehow, this combination

• 46:53Speaker 00

  of people is really extraordinary.

• 46:56Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah.

• 46:56Speaker 00

  You know, especially when you add J.D. Vance, Scott Beson, I, I, I'm, you know, I mean, I've been following administrations since 1976. I've never seen anything like this.

• 47:07Patrick Bet-David?

  What do you mean by that?

• 47:09Speaker 00

  In terms of competence, coherence, singularity of purpose, one of the things you probably noticed, there's no leaks. You know, this is not a government which is, is, you know, where some faction is trying to, you know, get factitious advantage by leaking this, that, and the other thing.

• 47:28Patrick Bet-David?

  You had a little bit of that with Michael Waltz, and you had a little bit of it with Joe Kent, and you had some of those stories.

• 47:33Speaker 00

  And they're, guess how long they lasted?

• 47:35Patrick Bet-David?

  That's true. Yes.

• 47:36Speaker 00

  Right? You know, that, this is, this is a different animal. You know, this, this is on point. They have a mission. They certainly understand that the enemy is globalism. They say that, they said that, they went to Davos, they said it. You know, Jameson Greer said the policy is the American system. So, you know, it, it's, it's there. You know, and then you have people like Scott Beson, who know from the inside how this British financier system works. I mean, he did work with George Soros, you know, and he did crash the British pound. So, you know, he's got some skills.

• 48:11Patrick Bet-David?

  He's got some skills. Yeah.

• 48:12Speaker 00

  You know, those skills are being used for us now for a change.

• 48:16Patrick Bet-David?

  That makes sense. And by the way, if there's a guy that knows how to mess with the currency very well, it's George Soros. So to be with him, I think he worked with him once for nine years, second time for five years, as his chief investment officer, chief, I don't know what it was, but chief, he was a heavyweight with Soros. So he has that experience. But to finish up with UK, when you see this chart here, this is from a paper that came from the Institute of Economic Affairs. When you look at this, it says what Americans perceive for UK to be in ranking of how wealthy UK is versus US for GDP per capita. And they said Americans believe UK would be right behind Jersey, okay, meaning New

• 48:58Patrick Bet-David?

  York first, California second, Washington third, Massachusetts, Texas, Jersey, then UK, then you have everybody else, which actual ranking, UK would be 51st. You know, this whole thing with V8, Tim and PBD podcast started with a phone, me and Mario, that's it. And it grew today to, you know, 15 million subscribers almost, and 164 full-time employees. And that relationship, are you watching us and supporting us wouldn't happen without you. But did you know 51% of you that watch the content are not subscribed to the channel? And it would mean the world to us if you could press that subscribe button and notification. Why? It allows us to grow, hire more, do bigger interviews, have a bigger team and deliver a better product to you. So if you haven't yet, if you don't mind,

• 49:42Patrick Bet-David?

  press that subscribe button. It would mean the world to us. So how much of their control that they have, the actual control and the actual wealth that they have, is falling apart, you know, where America is just getting, because you said something, you call them the dumb giant, right? The UK sees America as the dumb giant. Is this dumb giant becoming so giant that you can no longer control it?

• 50:38Speaker 03

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 51:07Speaker 04

  Kayak searches and compares hundreds of travel sites. But unless I repeat the word kayak, Kayak thinks you won't remember that. So Kayak asked me to say kayak as many times as possible. Kayak! Kayak. Kayak. Kayak, kayak, kayak. Kayak! Search and compare travel deals with Kayak. Got that right.

• 51:28Speaker 00

  Yeah, well, and it's also becoming way less dumb. I mean, that's, that's the point. You know, when, when you, when you rediscover the American system and the power that that actually gives you to be economically sovereign. You know, look at the question of energy. Well, you know, what is the, one of the premier policies of, of President Trump? Energy independence, which means you're no longer at the mercy of the Strait of Hormuz. Unfortunately, we're still at the mercy of, you know, Brent futures pricing, but I think that may recalibrate at some point in the not-too-far distant future. But you create independence in energy. So you're not reliant on their markets, or their strategic choke points, or their Lloyds

• 52:12Speaker 00

  of London insurance cutoff, and so on. And, and everything this administration has done, a lot of it quiet. You know, where, where you look at something seemingly boring, like the recent executive orders that the President promulgated on April 20th, where he invoked the Defense Production Act for a whole gamut of aspects of our energy sector, not just energy production, but generation and transmission, where we're incredibly vulnerable. We don't build transformers in the United States. And if we had to order one from South Korea, it'd take two years. So let's say you had a bunch of transformer accidents, the lights go out for years.

• 52:56Speaker 00

  And the President said, no, you know, this doesn't work. And in this order, he says, the market is not... Is is not seeing to our national defense. So we have to step in. And you know, there's all sorts of government financing institutions. Uh, under the Defense Production Act. In the Energy Department, you have things like the Export-Import Bank. I think there's one called the International Development Finance Corporation. But these these government corporations where this administration is saying, hey, Wall Street has not, and and the magic of the free market, has not seen to our basic needs. We are vulnerable in all these areas.

• 53:39Speaker 00

  You mentioned it, you know, during COVID, we discovered this. Well, you know, we we have to use the full array of government power to make sure that we're producing the basic things we need as a sovereign nation. One of those things is tariffs. But another of those things is how do you actually get credit into these sectors? If JP Morgan Chase would rather speculate than invest in some vital industrial area, how are you going to get the money in there? Will you use these government financing agencies to make sure that the credit goes to people who want to produce here in the United States? Um, J D Vance described it in terms of our strategic minerals of of

• 54:24Speaker 00

  weaknesses. He said, look, companies would come in and want to invest in a processing facility here in the United States. And they'd go through the onerous regulatory policies and they'd put a lot of money into this. And they're just about ready to get going. And China would come in and undercut the price and wipe them out and they'd go bankrupt. So we didn't have anything in the United States. He said, that's crazy. He said, so we're going to create new kinds of mechanisms where the producers are protected and they can produce. So what I mean by we're not dumb any longer. You know, dumb is blindly following the British free trade system.

• 55:04Speaker 00

  You know, blindly believing in some mystical invisible hand is going to make it all work out. No, the invisible hand is picking you. Your pocket to feed the city of London. And Donald Trump isn't playing that game any longer. And that's the problem that the British have right now.

• 55:21Patrick Bet-David?

  And how much of that do we see when we all of a sudden saw Lloyds of London pulling out? Was that a, was that a mistake on their end?

• 55:31Speaker 00

  I think it was a mistake on their end. I don't think they, I don't think they expected this administration to do what it did. Which is to step in and say, okay, you're not gonna do it, we will. So we essentially just broke a 300-year monopoly on shipping insurance by them pulling out. Because of course, that's the first time they had ever canceled insurance. Through all the other conflicts, you know, in the last 30, 40, 50 years. If you have a conflict in the region, they jack the prices up. You know, that was their business model, you know, they, they did quite well from there. They never canceled. And the fact that they canceled was their way of saying, we do not agree with Donald Trump trying to end this game.

• 56:16Speaker 00

  So we're gonna call his bluff, we're gonna cancel. And Trump counterbluffed and said, go ahead, make my day.

• 56:23Patrick Bet-David?

  How important was that? The average person didn't pay attention too much to that when that happened. In the power structure, how important was that move? And what do you think behind closed doors, UK sitting there saying, wait a minute, what did he say? He said he's gonna insure it? Yes. Oh shit. What do you think their reaction was to his move?

• 56:40Speaker 00

  No, I think you, I think you hit the nail on the head. They, they did not expect a president to do any of these kinds of things. Which is why they've been so flat-footed in terms of all of their responses right now. And it's out in the open. I mean, suddenly the country which was our oldest and dearest ally, which I always found completely hysterical. People would literally say, Britain is our oldest and dearest ally. And I said, excuse me, do you remember the American Revolution? Do you remember the War of 1812? They're not our oldest ally, right? But, but people were sort of in this, you know, this fairy tale and, you know, the soap opera of the royal family and all the rest of that.

• 57:17Speaker 00

  And I, I think this, this experience where they've, where in, in essence, the British are outing themselves by responding to a president who will openly not play their game.

• 57:33Speaker 00

  So, you know, I think I

• 57:35Patrick Bet-David?

  Who came from UK to the White House? And gave an invitation to the president that's never had before, that's we've never had before? And his reaction was very complimentary. I don't know if you remember this or not. This was about a year ago. Maybe 14 months ago, he got an invitation to do something that never in the history of America has that happened. Do you remember that?

• 57:58Speaker 00

  Yeah, sort of about as much as you do in terms of, I don't remember the specifics.

• 58:02Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, but it seemed like it was a big deal to the president. It seemed like the president was very honored by it and he was very, you know, taken by it. It's not too many times you see him going through it where you kind of see, oh, this is interesting. This has never happened before. Uh, but at the same time, I, I know he, the vibe he gives me is he doesn't want to be the man where anybody thinks they can control him. He'll deal with everybody. He'll do the team of rivals. And a lot of people will say, well, he's owned by this. He's owned by that. They control him. They tell him what to do and he does it. Um, I, I don't know if I fully buy into the fact that he's controlled by anybody. I think he's his own man. He's making the decisions. I mean, one of the things that he did that I want to get your thoughts on,

• 58:46Patrick Bet-David?

  where they withdrew from 66 international, you know, organizations. 31 was UN entities, 35 was non UN, one of them being the, in a world, uh, uh, health organization, the other being the UN Human Rights Council, the Paris Climate Agreement. He did that in 2016, 2018. And then Biden went back and then he redid it again. How important is it for him when he comes out and says, look, we're withdrawn from all these organizations that you guys claim are important to us? You know, do you think he does that to kind of make NATO? Or some of these guys realize, well, what happens if he all of a sudden withdraws? Cause, cause the way they handled the war with Iran,

• 59:26Patrick Bet-David?

  they almost made it seem like they didn't care if he withdraws or not, the way they handled. We're like, no, we're not going to let you do this, Spain. No, we're not going to let you fly over. No. You can't use our military bases. Okay. No problem. This is how far you want to go. Here's what I'm capable of doing as well. Do you think it'll ever get to a point that he withdraws from NATO?

• 59:43Speaker 00

  I think there's a good chance of it. Um, you know, I, I think all of these European countries right now are definitely punching above their weight class. I mean, what, what do they have to bring to the table? They, they bought into the green nonsense. They've destroyed their ability to produce energy for their populations. Uh, most of them don't have serious militaries. Uh, you know, they're dependent on, uh, you know, they left themselves dependent on oil from the Strait of Hormuz. So, uh, I, I think he's called a lot of people's bluffs and I think he's ready to call NATO's bluffs. But see, this is the way the president operates, you know? I, people should read The Art of the Deal.

• 1:00:21Speaker 00

  Um, it's much better to get your opponent to expose himself than for you to stand there and say this, that, and the other thing. So, you know, take the question of NATO or take the role of, you know, the British in terms of the bases and so on. You know, Donald Trump could have, you know, said, I don't like NATO. I don't like these people and one of these days I'm going to break with them. Instead, you know, he pursues a policy, which is the American policy, which is in the, what he believes is in the interest of the country. And by doing so, in a way that these institutions have not seen, you know, the last person I think who seriously challenged them strategically was Eisenhower in the Suez Crisis.

• 1:01:05Speaker 00

  And before that it was Roosevelt, that's another story. Um, but you know, here he is seriously challenging them and he's forcing them to expose themselves. So he doesn't have to go out and give some kind of, you know, uh, expert briefing to the American people about why NATO was a problem. NATO just proved that they're a problem. He doesn't have to go out and give some expert briefing about why Britain is not, you know, we should no longer have a special relationship with Britain. Britain just proved it. By refusing to step forward. Um, you know, so he's, he's, he's forcing these, these institutions, you know, and I would call them adversarial institutions

• 1:01:50Speaker 00

  to increasingly show their true color. Whereas previously, if a, you know, presidents, congress, other nations, political leaders, they all play by the rules of these games. You know, the post-war rules-based order is the favorite phrase of a lot of people like Mark Carney, uh, who's still trying to save it. Uh, you know, but if everybody plays by the rules of the game, nobody sees those rules. It's only when somebody says, no, I'm not playing by the rules of that game. That the, you know, people trying to enforce the game end up exposing themselves. And I think that's what's happened as, you know, especially with, um, NATO, with Iran, uh, and, you know, with, and the response of Europe to all of this.

• 1:02:35Patrick Bet-David?

  Let's, let's talk about the blockade because this kind of bleeds into that, right? With the whole NATO saying, we're not gonna, we don't want to fight this war. This is your war. This is Israel's war. We want to have nothing to do with it. With, with the way he set up the blockade and Iran being stuck, you know, to, they can only sit on the oil for so long before they start, you know, being uh, losing money. And we've seen the number, four to 500 million dollars a day they're losing, 12 to 15 billion dollars a month they're losing. How sustainable that is. And the Abbas Al-Rajhi, who is the main negotiator right now on their end, he didn't want to meet with US. He didn't want to meet with Whitkoff, Kushner and JD. So then he went to Islamabad. He had a meeting there. Then he went to Oman. Then he went to Russia to have a meeting, I believe, with Putin and his leaders.

• 1:03:18Patrick Bet-David?

  What do you, what is your impression of what's going to happen with Iran and how that ends?

• 1:03:23Speaker 00

  Well, I, you know, I, I don't want to get too far ahead of my skis in terms of, you know, predictions, because there's a lot of different moving pieces. And obviously you do not have a unified government in Iran. You know, you've got the IRGC, you've got the civilian government, you got a whole, who know, and who knows how much. Is going on in terms of Israeli intelligence, you know, how much is going on in terms of British intelligence and so on. So it's, you know, there's a lot of moving pieces in terms of this. But, you know, I, I think what characterizes Donald Trump in a very unique way, which is where you can hypothesize an outcome to this, is he operates in the real world of physical economy, and you hit the nail on the head. The fact that you've got this blockaded, the

• 1:04:08Speaker 00

  fact that, once the storage facilities in Iran are filled, and, you know, I've heard, I think Scott Besant said, May 2nd is the point that that hits, which we're getting pretty close to, or maybe it was a little bit after that, and then they have to stop pumping. And once you stop pumping, you lose the wells, right? It, you know, it just doesn't work any longer. If you stop pumping, you're gonna have to start from scratch and drill all over again. The president does have them over a barrel. You know, he's not just operating in the world of moving diplomatic chess pieces around. He's dealing in a world of physical reality where I think he's got him by the throat. Um, and they're gonna play it till

• 1:04:49Speaker 00

  the, I think they're gonna play it till the very last minute. And I think if the relatively sane people in Iran can make the decisions, and that's where I think you have a wild card yet, I don't know the answer to that. But if they can make the decisions to finally, you know, negotiate the fundamental questions in time, they are just up against it. I mean, their economy will, if, if, if they lose those oil wells, and, you know, that's gonna set, that will set them back to the Dark Ages much more, in a certain sense, than bombing bridges and, you know, electric, uh, uh, energy plants, which clearly the

• 1:05:29Speaker 00

  president doesn't want to do. He will, if he has to. But clearly, he didn't, he doesn't want to send the Iranian people back to the Stone Age, but he is not gonna let this cancer exist any longer. Um, but I think this, you know, the way that they're doing this, in terms of dealing in the world of physical reality, as opposed to diplomatic machinations and money machinations and so on, this, this gives the president, and when he says, I've got all the cards, that's what I think he's talking about.

• 1:06:02Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, it'll be, it'll be interesting. Now, who do you think could bail out Iran? Who could help him out? Who could give him a, extend their life of saying, hey, we'll be a customer of yours. Let's do a deal this way. Can Russia or China or anybody else help them out?

• 1:06:18Speaker 00

  I think Trump wants to help them out. I mean, you know, from the standpoint of the people, the people of the nation.

• 1:06:25Patrick Bet-David?

  I'm not talking, I'm talking about IRGC. I'm specifically saying IRGC. Who can help out the IRGC?

• 1:06:30Speaker 00

  Who can help out the IRGC? You know, I, I, I don't really, I don't really believe that either Russia or China is all that enamored of this regime. Um, I mean, they're, again, I, and when I'm talking about any nation, I'm not also presuming that they're completely unified. You know, I think there's a lot more factions in China than there probably are in Russia at this point, at least in terms of their, their actual influence. So are there factions in China that would like to bail out the IRGC? Probably. Uh, is Xi Jinping gonna let them? I don't know the answer to that, but if I had to guess, I'd say probably not. So I don't think they have too many places to go at this point.

• 1:07:17Speaker 00

  Because again, what has Donald Trump done with these other countries? What has he done with Russia? What has he done with China? He's created a different kind of relationship with them. If you read the National Security Strategy, which came out in December, or read the National Defense Strategy, which came out in January. These are very, very interesting documents because they're written for the layman. You know, they're not written in bureaucraties and they're relatively short. And they just establish a completely different parameter in the world where you do not see either Russia, especially you don't see Russia treated as some kind of immutable enemy. And you see China treated as a competitor.

• 1:08:00Speaker 00

  Who could cause problems in Asia, but we're going to be powerful enough that it won't. So, and, and believe me, the Chinese and the Russians have read those documents. You compare the US national security strategy document to the new British defense document. You know, their hair is on fire in terms of Russia, perpetual enemy, World War III around the corner, and so on and so forth. China, they have a more complicated approach to, which is how can we somehow still maneuver China in our world and use it against the United States? But the Russians and Chinese can read these documents. And I think they understand, at least the people calling the shots right now, certainly

• 1:08:41Speaker 00

  in Russia, and, you know, and with Xi Jinping in China, they see the United States as something very different than they've had to deal with for decades and decades. And, you know, in that world, do they still need to play assets like the IRGC to maintain their position on the chessboard and so on? I tend to think not.

• 1:09:05Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 1:09:35Speaker 03

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPac.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 1:10:04Speaker 04

  Kayak searches and compares hundreds of travel sites. But unless I repeat the word kayak. Kayak thinks you won't remember that. So Kayak asked me to say kayak as many times as possible. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kai.

• 1:10:24Speaker 03

  Ooh.

• 1:10:24Speaker 04

  Ak. Kai, Kai, Kai, Kai, kayak. Kayak, kayak, kayak. Kayak. Search, compare, and save on your trip. Kayak. Got that right.

• 1:10:36Patrick Bet-David?

  Really? So then when it comes down to China, I guess maybe the other thing for us to be thinking about with China is we saw the reports that came in. I think it's four or five consecutive years of a declining population. Four years, I believe. It's declining population. Looks like they're gonna have their fifth year here in 2026. And they're at 1.01. Their birth rate, and you know, the replacement number is 2.1. So they're at 1.01. And, and what are things that China is going through that they've been very good at hiding? That they're internally having to overcome? Because from the outset, like China's gonna take over. China's gonna be the powerful. China's gonna be this. China's gonna be that. I don't know where you subscribe to that mindset as well. And if not, what challenges are they're having that the world is not seeing? Because they're keeping it private.

• 1:11:22Speaker 00

  Well, I think you hit the nail on the head. I mean, you know, they're not replacing their population. And they've got a very stratified society. You know, and you have a whole lower level of society, which is not really participating in, you know, the kind of, of, you know, development and economic growth that you're seeing in terms of the way they play. They, they, look, they played the free trade system. Right? Um, you know, and, and as President Trump has said, I don't blame them. You know, but honestly, they didn't set up the free trade system. They just played it, but they created a very stratified society. Um, you know, the social credit system, you know, is clearly,

• 1:12:06Speaker 00

  I mean, I think that's one of the big aspects of it. The social credit system has to be a damper in terms of the ability of your society to actually develop. Um, because you're basically exerting a certain level of mind policing. And once you have mind policing, people are not gonna think independently. They're not gonna think creatively. So the, the durable basis for a future society, which is...

• 1:12:34Speaker 00

  Population replacement. Um, and you know, a, a population, a, a generalized population. Which can create and produce and participate. I think they've left themselves incredibly vulnerable because they just sort of plugged into this world free trade system. And, you know, milked it for what it was in the context of the way they were running their society. You know, it's not unlike the problem that the Soviet Union faced. Um, back in the, you know, before the, the end of the Soviet Union. Uh, you know, they had, they had a very highly skilled. Um, sector which built and supported their military.

• 1:13:19Speaker 00

  But it was totally closed off from the rest of society. And the rest of their civilian economy was just a complete disaster. And it was kind of that, that tension, that, that collapse of the civilian economy. Um, because the population again was in this kind of, you know, mind policing world. Where you're not allowed to think independently. And if you, if you do, you're going to be punished. Ultimately, that, that's what's going to kill any society. Now, you know, once with the fall of the Soviet Union. And with Putin's several presidencies, but especially this latest round. They put enormous impact on education, science and technology.

• 1:14:02Speaker 00

  You know, cultural expansion and so on for the whole population. And that's what's key. You can't have a stratified society and be successful. That, that's the ultimate failure of empires or any system. Which is based on that kind of idea that we have the elites and then we have the peons.

• 1:14:23Patrick Bet-David?

  It's funny, I had a guy on, I had a guy on a podcast a couple of weeks ago, Jiang. And, uh, he's made some interesting claims that, that they, in July of 2024, he says President Trump's going to win. He's going to go to war with Iran and he's going to lose. And he made those comments, those videos went viral. I don't know if he saw that or not. And we had a good conversation together. But when I asked him about China, he said, "In China, there are certain things you just can't talk about. You know, you just have to accept. You're like, "No, we don't even debate it. We don't have, you know, you can't push back on the following ideas that they have. If you do, they'll come knocking on your door." And it's just an accepted thing that they have. So you're right, because what that prevents man from doing, if I can't question,

• 1:15:05Patrick Bet-David?

  then I become, I lose the creativity of questioning. And then what happens? Nope, just follow the rules. Mom, what do I do with this? Nothing, just listen to what the government says and move on. But I don't agree with them, honey. Be quiet. They know what they're talking about. It's not sustainable for creative minds. Creative minds will get in trouble, like Jack Ma got in trouble and other people got in trouble. But long term, I don't know if we're really gonna see the consequence of what China is doing today for 50 years. I don't know if I'm gonna be around to see what happens to China. Because the case study you need, not just a decade, you're definitely alive, a decade is maybe a little bit. But you kind of need a few decades to see what's gonna happen to those guys.

• 1:15:49Patrick Bet-David?

  You know, by 2076, who are gonna be the players? You know, who's gonna be a big empire today that's gonna fall? We don't know, you know, what things are gonna happen. But what key factors you think will determine which empires are still in power 50 years from now? Not 10 years from now?

• 1:16:08Speaker 00

  Well, you know, the question is, will there be any empires? And that's up to us here in the United States. You know, if the Trump revolution succeeds and continues, you know, which means one of his successors, J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, you know, continues this. And we establish these principles, which are ensconced in the national security strategy, the national defense strategy and everything, what all the Trump people said when they went to Davos. "We want a world of sovereign nations." If the United States is able to play that role, which is what the British has always have been afraid of since certainly the time of Abraham Lincoln,

• 1:16:51Speaker 00

  but absolutely since the time of McKinley. You know, if the United States maintains itself as a sovereign, independent, prosperous nation, if other nations are allowed to replicate that, and you have, as the president has said so many times, a world of sovereign nations, then there won't be any empires. And I think China will adopt to that. Look, there's an older tradition in China. You know, I mentioned the countries that were advocates of the American system. Shenkai Shak was an open advocate of the American system. He wrote about the American system of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Carey and others. That tradition is still there somewhere in China.

• 1:17:37Speaker 00

  You know, I mentioned Count Sergey Vitte in Russia. So, you know, you had the Soviet Union, you had Communist China. Soviet Union is gone. Russia is going back much more to its tradition of as, you know, as a sovereign nation based on Christian principles. You know, Chinese is, China isn't necessarily Christian, but there's a lot in Confucian principles, which cherish the kinds of things you're talking about in terms of creativity. So what I would envision, and again, it's entirely up to what happens here in the United States, that if the Trump revolution sustains itself and continues, in 50 years, there won't be any empires. And in fact, we'll have sovereign nations.

• 1:18:20Speaker 00

  And who knows, we may have sovereign colonies on the moon and Mars.

• 1:18:25Patrick Bet-David?

  Well, I mean, listen, that is very ideal if you believe that. And so it'd be good to see that happen. By the way, walk me through the influence that Lyndon LaRoche has had on you. Very interesting character. No matter how much I read about him, this guy is a very unique character. You know, he went from, you know, when I see him politically, he was a socialist worker for the Trotskyists in the 40s and 50s, far left. You know, and we know what happened to Trotskyis. They got kicked out of Russia. They were so communist, they got kicked out that I think the guy ended up getting killed or died in Mexico. I don't know what it was, but something like that. Yeah, he was assassinated. And then he ends up joining the labor committees in nineteen,

• 1:19:09Patrick Bet-David?

  the National Caucus of Labor Committees in sixty-nine, founded the US Labor Party in seventy-three, and then shifted to far-right politics in the mid-seventies. He got himself a little bit of in trouble with mail fraud and tax evasion, the thirty million dollars, whatever it was that he ended up having to do fifteen years. I think he only did five years, married a girl twenty-seven years younger than him. He ran for president many times. Interesting guy. Why did he inspire you? What about him interests you?

• 1:19:38Speaker 00

  What interests me is I ran into his movement a couple of years after the Bobby Kennedy assassination, which had obviously affected me pretty dramatically and was sort of spiraling into hopelessness in terms of what are we going to do to turn this country back around again? And I ran into somebody espousing his ideas, and the one thing with him which has never changed, and you know, these descriptions of him are kind of, again, like the shadows on the wall, where you take a noun or an adjective and you act like that's what he was. He was a universal genius, and his passion was always this divergence between

• 1:20:19Speaker 00

  the development of the physical economy based on the creativity of the human mind versus all these other kind of artificial systems based on money or systems analysis or whatever. And what attracted me to him is that he was an intellectual who forced you to constantly hypothesize and rethink the way you thought. And we did rethink. The organization which I joined, which he founded, rethought everything when we discovered the American system. And, you know, it, it, nothing had changed from the standpoint of our fundamentals. We were trying to find what, what, what is, what is the policies? What are the institutions?

• 1:21:01Speaker 00

  What is the philosophy that exists in the world that will do what we wanted to do? And when, when, literally, we had to rediscover the American system. And it was actually right around the time of the American bicentennial in 1976, that then everything kind of locked in. And we could take the same principles that we had always espoused. But we're trying to figure out, well, socialism worked. Does this work? Does that, what, what works? We said, oh, here it is. The American system has always worked. So, you know, the, the, you know, the media will then say, oh, he went from left to right. He didn't change. What, he, he, his principles and his policies always stayed the same.

• 1:21:45Speaker 00

  And, um, you know, his, and his influence is, is, is not always understood, but he played a vital role in Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. He met Reagan on the campaign trail in 1980. They talked about this and LaRouche was brought into the Reagan administration for intensive discussions on what Reagan ultimately announced as the Strategic Defense Initiative. Um, I was there in Washington. And at that point, this same imperial elite, which went after Donald Trump, said, okay, LaRouche is getting too big for his britches. Uh, among the people who prosecuted Lyndon LaRouche were Robert Mueller. So, you know, it's a small world.

• 1:22:30Speaker 00

  Wow. Uh, you know, we got to, uh, eighty-seven. Interesting. I think that, yeah, I think the Mueller indictment was either eighty-six or eighty-seven. Maybe it was a little bit. It became a blur because there were, it was just like Trump. There were so many indictments at the state and the federal level. Now, one thing I have to say, which I would want to say anyway, uh, following LaRouche's passing, uh, his widow, Helga Zeplarouche, took the organization in a direction which we completely disagreed with. Um, and so those of us who formed Promethean Action split off, and we have nothing to do with her, which we need to say legally, but as I say, I would want to do anyway.

• 1:23:07Patrick Bet-David?

  Very interesting. Yeah, because when I, when I see some of this stuff, look, people like this are very interesting to study because you want to know why they say what they say. Some of the claims he made, he said Queen Elizabeth II runs the international narcotics trade. Okay, he claimed Hitler's rise was orchestrated by Rothschilds, Warburgs, and Oppenheimer's, which we know Warburgs were very powerful uh, uh, on what they did. They were even involved with the Jekyll Island, the, the meeting at Jekyll Island of beginning of a building Federal Reserve. Um, then he said, "British rules Israel as a zombie nation." Okay, "British intelligence and a queen circle controlled the US economy." "Queen Elizabeth II framed Bill Clinton."

• 1:23:50Patrick Bet-David?

  "British intelligence orchestrated the Russiagate." "The CIA, KGB, and British intelligence conspired to assassinate Lyndon LaRoche." "The IMF deliberately created and spread AIDS." "The CIA and KGB brainwashed and kidnapped LaRoche AIDS into assassins." I mean, when you go and, but I can go on and on and on. This guy had some very unique takes, uh, uh, you know, uh, on, on what happened. So, did you ever spend time with him one on one? Were you around him?

• 1:24:23Speaker 00

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:24:23Patrick Bet-David?

  And, and what was, would, these are things he literally believed in on what happened?

• 1:24:28Speaker 00

  Well, those, those are kind of cartoonish type characterizations of some of the things, but, you know, take for example, the question of, uh, the international drug trade. Um, you know, the, the, the key element, and this is something that Besen and the Trump administration are taking on. The key element of the international narcotics trade, you know, is not the cigar boats with the drugs on them. It's who launders the drug money. And there, all you have to do is go back to the 1960s, when the British, the city of London in particular, set up the entire offshore banking operation in the Cayman Islands, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and so on, where you have these black boxes of complete and total secrecy

• 1:25:13Speaker 00

  in terms of moving money. This is where the financial flows which finance international drug trafficking come from. Um, you know, you also have very premier institutions like Hong Kong, Shanghai. Uh, in the 1970s, we wrote a book entitled Dope Incorporated.

• 1:25:33Speaker 00

  And some of the research we used came from the, I think she was the Bank Commissioner of New York, who had filed a brief against Hong Kong Shanghai being able to charter itself in New York because of their role in international drug money laundering. So all we did is we just started to put all the pieces together. Now, you know, this was then caricatured, I think there was even a Saturday Night Live skit, you know, which shows somebody playing the Queen of England with nickel bags, you know, handing them off to Henry Kissinger, who by the way, at one point gave a speech at Chatham House where he said, "When I was Secretary of State, I kept the British Foreign Office more closely informed than I did the State Department." So, you know, confessions, essentially.

• 1:26:18Speaker 00

  But, you know, but, but when you look at the institutions in terms of drug money laundering, in fact, it was about 10 years ago, I think it was the fellow who was the drug, anti-drug czar for Russia, I think his name was Costa or Cotta, gave a speech at the United Nations where he pretty much said everything we had said in Dope Inc., you know, that it's these big London-based banks that finance international drug trafficking. So, you know, again, the, the, the media will put a kind of cartoon version of this, but, you know, or you look at Hitler, look at the role of his Finance Minister, Helmar

• 1:27:00Speaker 00

  Schacht, who came straight out of London Wall Street networks, who was deployed back to Germany to basically set up a financial structure in Germany to keep paying the war reparations debt, and then later to have the money to militarize Germany and so on. He, he came straight out of these Anglo-American financial circles. So, you know, when, when, when you bother to look at the, you know, you, you just get below the, the surface level of history, which is what you get if you look at Wikipedia usually, you know, and, and again, just dive a little bit more deeply.

• 1:27:43Speaker 00

  You'll you'll find that that all of the claims which LaRouche made could be thoroughly, thoroughly historically proven, you know, not in a two-sentence, you know, simple-minded version, but if you actually look at the historical processes behind this, um, and there, up until recently, there's really been very little serious history that people have done. It's all been this, you know, this really simple-minded soap opera cartoon version of history. Um, one historian who I think has done extremely important work, and I always take the opportunity to highlight, uh, is a book by Richard Poe, uh, entitled,

• 1:28:27Speaker 00

  How the British Created Communism and Blamed It on the Jews. Now, that is an amazing book.

• 1:28:34Patrick Bet-David?

  How the British Created Communism and Blamed It on the Jews?

• 1:28:37Speaker 00

  Created Communism and Blamed It on the Jews.

• 1:28:39Patrick Bet-David?

  How do they do it? What does he say?

• 1:28:41Speaker 00

  What he he he shows is that communism was created in London. I mean, actually, Karl Marx was on the payroll of the, um, of, uh, yeah, there's the book, uh, was was

• 1:28:55Patrick Bet-David?

  Wow.

• 1:28:56Speaker 00

  through, uh, Erkhardt was basically on the payroll of the British East India Company. You know, they wanted to create an ideology which they could use largely against Russia. I mean, what he documents in the book is that so much of British policy, well, British policy was largely aimed in the 19th and the early 20th century against their great rival on the continent, which was Russia, and whatever they could do to weaken Russia. And then, of course, they were worried about what was going on with the United States. Um, but what he documents is how these these movements were completely synthetically created, and they were all created for geopolitical purposes, and that the claim that it was

• 1:29:39Speaker 00

  the Jews was also straight from British intelligence. This is a short book, uh, actually, like, I don't know, 20% of it is the footnotes. That's how well documented it is. It's an easy read. He's an excellent writer. Um, and I I think people will just find their entire worldview begin to shift when you work through something like this.

• 1:30:02Patrick Bet-David?

  Is he, so Richard Poe is alive? So he's a, uh, uh, cause it just came out two years ago.

• 1:30:07Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:30:08Patrick Bet-David?

  Rob, can you go on Richard Poe's link just to see, what is his background?

• 1:30:13Speaker 00

  Ah, I don't quite remember. He's, it might be an investigative journalist.

• 1:30:17Patrick Bet-David?

  New York Times bestselling author and award-winning journalist. He has written bestselling books on many subjects, figures on some other shadow of, interesting. All right. Interesting.

• 1:30:25Speaker 00

  No, he's, he's just a really competent historian and there have been so few of those out there who actually just do the work, do the work, you know, as opposed to taking a bunch of secondary sources and pasting them together. I mean, that's the other thing I will say in terms of my time with Lyndon LaRouche, which is it was all primary sources. You know, you don't read somebody's description of what something was happening, doing. You went back, read the primary sources. And I would say that the, the, you know, the, the same thing is true of the Trump administration today. Stop getting your ideas about what Donald Trump is doing from social media unless you're reading Trump himself. Go to the White

• 1:31:09Speaker 00

  House website, read the executive orders, read the findings. One of my favorite pastimes is watching a cabinet meeting. These cabinet meetings are amazing because you actually see a team and they're not rivals, a team of people, you know, who are working with each other in sync to carry out an actual revolutionary policy. It's actually all there. You just have to look for it as opposed to ta, you know, as opposed to taking Fox News' or the Washington Post's version of, you know, what is going on. Just go to the primary sources yourself and start thinking.

• 1:32:16Speaker 03

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 1:32:45Speaker 04

  Kayak searches and compares hundreds of travel sites. But unless I repeat the word kayak, Kayak thinks you won't remember that. So Kayak asked me to say kayak as many times as possible. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kayak. Kai.

• 1:33:05Speaker 03

  Ooh.

• 1:33:06Speaker 04

  Ak. Kai, Kai, Kai, Kai, kayak. Kayak, kayak, kayak. Kayak. Search, compare, and save on your trip. Kayak. Got that right.

• 1:33:17Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, I mean, if you don't do that, there's, we have congressmen and congresswomen who think there's been 11 wars. I don't know if you saw that yesterday with Ilhan Omar talking about World War 11.

• 1:33:30Patrick Bet-David?

  And because she thought that, you know, when they put the two, she thought it meant 11.

• 1:33:36Speaker 00

  Oh, yeah, right.

• 1:33:37Patrick Bet-David?

  She was, she was reading off a paper, and she said, "World War 11", and she was destroyed for it. I'm sure it was an innocent mistake, but she was destroyed over it. But that's a good point. By the way, last thing with LaRoche. Who would be a modern-day Lyndon LaRoche today? Do we have one? Because he ran for president, I think, six, seven, or eight times. I don't know what the number is. He kept running, and the highest he ever got was 2% as a Democrat in the mid-'80s, in '84, something like that.

• 1:34:03Speaker 00

  Right, right. I mean, we were probably starting to get some traction when all the attacks began against us. But, you know, I don't know if Donald Trump will appreciate this or not. But, you know, I say that before there was Trump, there was LaRoche. And what happened with Donald Trump is he picked up the same fight. Probably not with the same historical or philosophical depth because LaRouche was really a genius. In terms of economics, in terms of science, in terms of philosophy, he was just conversant in everything.

• 1:34:37Speaker 00

  I mean, if you listen to one of his discussions, you know, he's talking about, you know, philosophical fights which nobody has heard about, but which nonetheless were really foundational to the development of civilization.

• 1:34:52Speaker 00

  Does Trump Trump have that kind of depth? I don't know, again. But it's it's but it's essentially the same instinct. And, you know, with Trump, what did you have with Trump? You have somebody who had the money to do this.

• 1:35:06Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah.

• 1:35:06Speaker 00

  You know, could Trump have become president in 2016 if he weren't a billionaire? No. And also a new social media platform which didn't exist. When LaRouche was running, I mean, our our, you know, we got material out by leaflets, you know, by pamphlets.

• 1:35:26Speaker 00

  And so on, you know, which which had a certain effect. And at at at certain local levels before we came under the kind of attack again that you've seen with Trump and all the attacks against him. We were beginning to win primary elections in, you know, local and state races and so on. We were beginning to build up a certain kind of traction. But, you know, they hit us with a ton of bricks and figured they would wipe us out. They didn't wipe us out, you know, they basically severely damaged us. But basically, we could hang on as an institution to keep these ideas alive. And LaRouche did live long enough to see Trump get elected. And he saw that as as an extension of the kind of fight that he had fought. And

• 1:36:11Speaker 00

  because the key is if you don't have a leader with that kind of courage to stand up and fight, you're never going to get to these deeper levels. It's only because Trump has stood his ground and fought. And it's forced the enemy much more into the open. than they ever have been. Not one assassination attempt, but three very visible ones and a few others that, you know, didn't quite get to the level of of the three that we're talking about. Um, so, uh, but I, I think LaRusia's approach was always, we, we need many Donald Trumps or Lyndon LaRusias.

• 1:36:51Speaker 00

  That is, you need people who will think, who will challenge, and will then have the courage to act on their convictions. And that gets back to what we've talked about in terms of creativity and independence. That's the quarter or republic. You know, if you don't have people who have the courage of their convictions, and, and you know, that's one of the horrible things about DEI and, you know, I mean, DEI and, you know, all this social, you know, enforcement is really no different than social credit in Britain. That, that will cripple your society. Your, your average healthy society should have a whole bunch of people who are like Donald Trump. They may not express themselves in the same way as Donald Trump,

• 1:37:34Speaker 00

  but you know, people who have the courage of their convictions and who think. Um, that, that, that's where I, that, that's when a republic is secure.

• 1:37:43Patrick Bet-David?

  Did LaRusia and the president ever meet? Was there ever a documented meeting between the two?

• 1:37:47Speaker 00

  No, I don't believe so. I don't believe so.

• 1:37:49Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, because you know, the, the president will listen to anybody and everybody. And he always like, well, what is the ideas he has? What is she saying? You know, he, he's not, uh, he's not one that wouldn't listen to anybody. I mean, he's met with some of the most controversial people that will come to Mar-a-Lago. And he's like, yeah, I'll sit down and talk to you. What do you have to say? And then he'll get heat for it afterwards. Like, oh, okay. Yeah, I just had a conversation with a guy. Just had breakfast with a guy. Just had a meeting with a guy. So, um, I do like that about him a lot. Uh, last thing I'll ask you before we wrap up. What is, what is one storyline that influencers, podcasters, content creators are?

• 1:38:28Patrick Bet-David?

  That's very popular, that does very, very well, that is extreme, by far not accurate, and has brain-rotted a lot of people. What do you notice that you look at and say, "What are you saying? That's a lazy position." And we all fall for a lot of different things at times, and you go do research, you're like, "Well, what was that all about? Why did I believe that for a year, or two years, or three years?" And you try to snap out of it by taking a cold shower, and reading books, and hearing different arguments. But what's one or two ideas that you see spreading, you're like, "That's a full-on lie, and it's propaganda."

• 1:39:02Speaker 00

  Well, on the one hand, probably the one which is most widespread at this point is the whole question of the Epstein files. You know, and when you get to the, when you get to the far left, you know, you have these obscenities of, you know, "Trump is a rapist and a pedophile, and he eats children," which is part of what created the environment around this latest assassination attempt, clearly. But there's also part of the MAGA movement, which is also, you know, heavily invested in this. And, you know, when you look at how much, look at who the Epstein files has actually brought down. Brought down Peter Mandelson. They brought down Prince Andrew, no longer Prince Andrew, and so on. You know, but this fixation that Donald Trump is somehow the beating heart of the Epstein files

• 1:39:46Speaker 00

  is extremely corrosive. Because people who are just living in that world have literally stopped thinking. And that spans both the left and the right, obviously. You know, the question of Epstein is his intelligence ties. You know, you look at Mandelson. Why, what was he feeding Epstein? Top financial information during the 2008 crisis, and so on. So, people who are completely fixated on the island are ignoring the fact that this is a much larger intelligence operation, and guess what? It actually is being dismantled. So, you know, I think this question of, "I'm not going to support Donald Trump until I see, you know, people in handcuffs

• 1:40:30Speaker 00

  in the Epstein files," and so on, they're really not paying attention to what the president is actually doing to bring down the structure. That created Epstein. You know, sometimes I say, look, there were evil things of that same kind of quality in the Roman Empire. You know, what, what, what, what was the, what was the solution for society? You know, put everybody who ever did that in Rome in handcuffs or bring down the Roman Empire? And that's what I think the president is trying to do. And the other, the other big one, of course, is the Israel question, which Tucker and Candace and, you know, the rest of these things have gotten on to. You know, that's a longer question, but it's not, it's, it's completely parallel to the

• 1:41:14Speaker 00

  British role in creating the Muslim Brotherhood. They created radical Zionism. Um, you know, which is not, which is not Judaism, just like political Islam is not Islam. Uh, and that's a larger, longer story. But, you know, that, that has clearly, I mean, I see it in the, I, th- those are the two things I get in the comments in my videos. Um, you know, from people who disagree the most, Israel and Epstein. Um, and if you actually look more seriously at what is behind both of those, it takes you back to the same place that we're talking about, which is this British imperial system, a system which the president is taking down.

• 1:41:57Patrick Bet-David?

  Got it. Yep. Well, Susan, great having you on. Uh, where can people find you? Is it the Promethean Action site?

• 1:42:05Speaker 00

  Yeah, PrometheanAction.com, that's it. Uh, that's my latest video up there. Um, and, uh, we have a YouTube channel, which you can link to through there and a lot of other material, including background material, um, on the Promethean Action website, including, if you want to go back to the website, we have an ebook on there under the toolkit, uh, which is called, uh, Police Dossier. It is the British who murder our presidents. Very useful thing for people to read right now because it goes through the history of Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy, and the attempts on Trump.

• 1:42:43Speaker 00

  So.

• 1:42:44Patrick Bet-David?

  Let's put that below, Rob, if we can, both links. Susan, thank you for making the time to come on and I look forward to our next conversation as more things will happen under Trump. I have a feeling there's going to be many more things happening that we'll probably invite you back to have a conversation with. In the meantime, keep creating, creating great content. You got a lot of people thinking and looking for things they weren't looking for before. And by the way, that video that's on there from 17 years ago, did you really have this YouTube channel 17 years ago?

• 1:43:15Speaker 00

  We did. It was when we were still LaRouche Pack.

• 1:43:17Patrick Bet-David?

  Oh, so that's, so this YouTube channel used to be called LaRouche Pack?

• 1:43:21Speaker 00

  Right. So some of the history, that's actually, that 1932 is a great history.

• 1:43:27Patrick Bet-David?

  It really is. It really is. I was looking at him like it's an hour and 40 minutes, but it was from 17 years ago. And that's, oh, okay. Very cool. Well, thank you, Susan. All the best to you. Appreciate your time.

• 1:43:40Speaker 00

  Thank you for having me.

• 1:43:42Patrick Bet-David?

  Anytime. You know, this whole thing with V8 and PBD Podcast started with a phone, me and Mario. That's it. And it grew today to, you know, 15 million subscribers almost and 164 full-time employees. And that relationship, are you watching us and supporting us? Wouldn't happen without you. But did you know 51% of you that watch the content are not subscribed to the channel? And it would mean the world to us if you could press that subscribe button and notification. Why? It allows us to grow, hire more, do bigger interviews, have a bigger team and deliver a better product to you. So if you haven't yet, if you don't mind, press that subscribe button. It would mean the world to us. Thank you so much.