Shaun Newman Podcast - #964 - Anton Chaitkin

Episode Date: December 8, 2025

Anton Chaitkin is an American author, historian, and investigative journalist known for his works on U.S. political and economic history, often critiquing imperialism, oligarchy, and figures tied to the British Empire's influence in America. He gained prominence through his association with the LaRouche movement, serving as History Editor for Executive Intelligence Review, a publication linked to activist Lyndon LaRouche. Chaitkin's writing emphasizes America's revolutionary heritage, industrial progress, and struggles against elite factions, drawing from extensive research into primary sourcesTickets to Cornerstone Forum 26’: https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone26/Tickets to the Mashspiel:https://www.showpass.com/mashspiel/Silver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: [e-mail] Grahame: [phone]Bow Valley Credit UnionBitcoin: www.bowvalleycu.com/en/personal/investing-wealth/bitcoin-gatewayEmail: [e-mail] Prophet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: [e-mail] the code “SNP” on all ordersGet your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Prodnick. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Brad Wall. This is J.P. Sears. Hi, this is Frank Paredi.

This is Tammy Peterson. This is Danielle Smith. This is James Lindsay. Hey, this is Brett Kessel, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Monday. How was everybody's weekend? It was fun on this side.

Lots of hockey. And, you know, it was cold. I'm not going to lie. It's cooling off. here in Canada. You know, we just recently showed that I got listened to in 87 countries, some of the Spotify wrapped, and I've been appreciating all the texts in regards to where I sit in your playlist. So if you're not in Canada, it was a cold one, I'm not going to lie, it was chilling up here. And hopefully wherever you're at, you enjoyed the weekend. Now, we'll start

with a little silver gold bowl. Did you know that you can hold physical gold and silver in your registered accounts? Silver Gold Bowl can help unlock the potential of your RRS, TFSA RRIF or Kids RESP by adding physical gold and silver to your account. This year's RRSP deadline for making contributions into your RRSP. Man, there's a lot of acronyms, is March 2nd, 2026, but once the contribution is made, you can invest it into physical precious metal at any time. And Silver Gold Bowl, obviously, is the company I recommend to family and friends,

friends of the show, interested in precious metals, and they can help you with their in-house solutions, whether buying, selling, or storing precious metals. Text or email Graham down in the show notes for details with any questions you may have around investing in precious metals or for feature silver deals exclusively offered to you, the SMP, listener. Just head down in the show notes. And if you're on silvergoldbill.com,

just make sure to reference the Sean Newman podcast. Bow Valley Credit Union, buying and selling Bitcoin has never been easier. Bow Valley Credit Union has developed the first in Canada of Bitcoin Gateway with just a few clicks. You can buy Bitcoin directly from your Bow Valley Credit Union. credit union account, your Bitcoin Gateway account is linked to your traditional BVCU bank account enabling seamless on ramps and off ramps between Fiat and Bitcoin. Little tech experts tease or knowledge of blockchain required, visit Bo Valley CU for more

information. Profit River, when you're looking for firearms, and I was joking last week about stocking stuffers, but to all the hunters out there, or maybe to their spouses, and you're looking for stocking stuffers, take a look at Profitriver.com. I'm just saying there's some good ideas on there for some stocking stuffers. But for anyone else, wherever you're at

in Canada, you can also email Joel at SMP at Profitriver.com. Any purchases you make, make sure to use the coupon code SMP. That gets you into monthly draws. And yeah, when it comes to firearms here in Canada, just go to Profitriver.com. They are the major

retailer of firearms, optics, and accessories and they serve all of Canada. Plywood, whether you're in the mood for a podcast studio table, yes, there's been lots of people come into the studio and look at the current table or the new round table, and all that wood comes from Windsor Plywood, whether we're talking mantles, decks, windows, doors, sheds, podcast studio tables, Windsor Plywood has all the character word that you could possibly ever wish for. And stop in the day and see Cardling and the team over there at Windsor Plywood Lloyd Minster. coming January 17th. It is just around the corner. We're going to be in Calmar, just west of Laduke, west of the International Airport, Emmington International Airport, that is, and we've added a whole group of people going to be there. Chuck Prodnick's going to be there, Jamie Sinclair, Marty up north, Evichipiac, myself, twos. Yeah, that's going to be a fun, fun day, and some interesting faces going to be showing up to do their best curdling, or lack there of,

maybe. And I hope to see you there. You can find the link down in the show notes, and you can sound up as an individual or as a team of four. The Cornerstone Forum returns March 28th at the Westing Calgary Airport. Yes, returning to Calgar. We just announced last week, Martin Armstrong returning in person, Tom Luongo, Alex Kraner, Vince Lanchi, Matt Erich, Chad Prather, Karen Katowski, Sam Cooper, Tom Bodrovics, and twos, and a few more yet to come. The big thing is early bird tickets on sale until December 31st. I don't know if I can state that enough is

you might as get your ticket here in this month before prices go up. They're the cheapest they're going to be, folks. So go get your early bird ticket for the Cornerstone Forum returning March 28th in Calgary. If you're listening or watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Rumble,

X, substack, Facebook, make sure to subscribe, make sure to leave a review, and if you're enjoying the show, make sure to share with a friend. All right, let's get on to that tale of the tape. Today's guest is an American author, historian, an investigative journalist. I'm talking about Anton Chaitkin. So buckle up. Here we go. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Today I'm joined by Anton Chaitkin. Sir,

Thanks for hopping on. Thank you. It's really good to be with you. It's a little cold in your part of the world. I was just going to say, what is the weather like in your part of the world? I'm like, if you're about to say it's cold where you are, I'm like, I can bring me on up here. No, no. I grew up in Southern California.

My wife's from Arizona, so that's the way I like it. I'd like to be in Jamaica or Egypt or somewhere now. Well, I tell you what, it was a pretty, it was a nice balmy minus one here today. And I tell you what, it was almost T-shirt weather. I'm not going to say it was T-shirt weather, but it felt almost like a spring day. And, yeah, that's when you know you lived up here too long, is when you're thinking minus one. Jeez, that doesn't feel so bad. Now, Anton, we can talk weather all night long.

And I should probably address my audience, because I think this might be the first time I've ever worn glasses on the podcast. Yes, I have glasses. I have been having issues with my eyes, folks, and I wasn't going to wear them, and then I realized I couldn't see you, so I'm wearing them. That aside, first time on the podcast. Tell the audience a bit about yourself.

Well, I've been working on history for since the 1970s. I was in the LaRouche movement as a political organizer, and I wrote for the Executive Intelligence Review. I was a history editor, and I developed a special interest in understanding how the United States was a success in the world. And of course, that was spurred. by that interest was spurred by the fact that we stopped being a success after the Kennedy brothers were killed and after the U.S. deindustrialized along with a whole change in Western

strategy, really away from civilization towards wars and so forth. So what was the previous idea for the success of the success? of our civilization and what was the goal and a mission of people that contributed the most to major advances spurts forward in the you know in the living standards and in the culture and way of life on our side and I found that there was I and other people that I was working with looked into the former economic system in the United States, which was our signature system as opposed to the British Empire. It was called the American system, named that way by Henry Clay.

And this was the idea of protectionism and government providing credit through a national bank. or other means and the government sponsoring infrastructure. It wasn't socialism, and it wasn't the notion of capitalism that's taught in the fake economics profession. So behind this system, which we maintained against the imperialist system, against the British Empire in particular, behind that was a sense of a personal and social mission by people of genius in our country. Working with like-minded people in many other countries, when those other countries were free to do it. And we had inventions and discoveries and nationally guided periods of very strong progress. And you want to find out who did this and why.

Who were these people that propelled? They were private industrialists. They were also statesmen. and they were in a constant battle against the other side, the faction that wanted to retard this progress. And this is from the very founding of the country all the way up through our era. The financiers largely connected to the old British Empire never built American industry. They, certain times money came from Wall Street into industry, but they never. initiated anything and there was a war all the time between those globalists who wanted to have

us bow to the imperial idea that man is doomed to to be impoverished and in wars we didn't agree with that we had a completely different philosophy and that different philosophy was the entire basis for our success so the idea that we that the world is divided into to socialist and capitalist, you know, ideologies, and that explains something is so far away from the reality of history that it's people that study history know it, know that it's a bad joke. Actually, it was based on the British reporting, fake reporting of the French Revolution. So this is what I've been working on, especially since, you know, in the last, last decade, I've written two books out of the three books of a trilogy. I'm working on the

third volume now. It's called Who We Are, America's Fight for Universal Progress, from Franklin to Kennedy. The first volume published in 2020 went from the English Industrial Revolution through our founding to the 1850s. Second volume was from the 1830s to the 1890s. And this volume that I'm working on now will go from the 1890s to Kennedy and somewhat beyond. And I'll show the two sides in our history. The West of the world really doesn't know about this. Americans vaguely know something about it,

but not from the standpoint of deletion. deliberate development of industry, science, technology, and higher living standards as a mission for our country. Without that mission, the country would have collapsed and we would have lost our independence. So that is the core, really the improvement along those lines is really the core mission of our nation. That's what we have to recover that idea. And I want to give, as we get into a discussion, I would give a good example of how this really works

from some current work that I'm doing. Okay. I'm like, I wrote down five different things. That's a lie. I wrote down six different things. I'm like, okay, what do I pull on here? I'm going to start, I'm going to start because I'm a student of history,

but you know it's funny um when I hear different things I'm like man did I like miss that uh you you mentioned the LaRouche movement yeah and I've heard Matt erit talk about it but Matt erit talks about things at times with me where I'm like holy crap he just said 50 things and I'm like I can't slow you know I got to piece it together when you say the LaRouche movement and that you were a part of that what was the the LaRouche movement linda LaRouche was a man Averick operating in the left community in the 1950s, I think, into the 60s. He was an economist, and he was a critic of the political spectrum, the whole thing. What happened is that when Kennedy, John Kennedy was murdered, the U.S.

went into a change in strategy. We were wrenched out of what had made us successful. And LaRouche recognized this and was following the trend in thinking, the trend in the deliberate strategy towards austerity as a national policy, austerity especially towards the poor in the rest of the world. And disinvestment in advanced industry for the USA. And a whole philosophy was developed, dangerous philosophy, teaching the young people that progress of society was not good.

And that the human race even was the enemy. So this was accompanied by the Vietnam War by other wars. And so we had to, we had a political and philosophical association looking into what had been the philosophical basis of the advances, going all the way back to, you know, the classical European and some other cultures, the basis for human advancement. And what was going to happen if we gave that up? If we allowed these bankers, these globalists, these world imperialists who were still running the underdeveloped countries, even after they got nominal independence, if they changed the philosophy to loot and take down living standards, then what would happen? The world would go to hell, into a real hell, a dystopia. They also started teaching the young that dystopia, that is the future, must be black, must be horrible. And that's what you can count on, maybe nuclear war or something, so that people were taught to lose their optimism and their sense of spunk and fight, which is what our country had been based on.

So the idea that we had a magazine Executive Intelligence Review, and we were in touch with people in other countries that had similar ideas to try to revive, especially the American point of view of we can accomplish anything as a society. We can do what's needed to solve mankind's problems. That was the former idea. So it's a real renaissance. That was the basis of that movement. It wasn't right or left. It was pro-human. Pro-human, but also specifically for the technological and industrial and scientific upshift

to give us more power, more hot energy, more really advanced energy sources like fusion power, nuclear fission also, and to make sure that the whole world would be participating in this necessary upshift of our labor force. We need the more people that are involved with productive work, not only in our country, but worldwide, the richer the whole world is. This is completely contrary to the notions that are taught in economics. What they're teaching is some zero-sum idea. They're vaguely promoting, you know, you should, you should do what's right for world, world commerce with free trade. But of course, that's never, that's never a good idea. That's not, that's not what gets it. The real, the real trade philosophy of the United

States when it was successful was that you, you build up your productive capabilities with high tariffs. You protect yourself from cheap imports that would destroy your ability to have successful companies. And at the same time, you're cooperating with other countries who are also seeking to promote their own protected growth. And you cooperate. You do reciprocal trade deals. You encourage the growth of high-powered capital-intensive industries in other countries. You build infrastructure all over the world. That's what we used to do. That's how we were successful. A combination of protect your own people and their own jobs through protectionism with seeing that that's a universal idea. Progress has to be universal.

You're not going to just open your gates of your country to let all the products come in without tariffs and then you don't have any industry. But you want those other countries to be successful. And you want them to be powers, friends of yours, powerful nations. If these other countries in Africa or Asia or South America are weak, the British Empire used to. see that as their advantage then they could dominate them to the extent that we have that point of view and keep them as raw materials suppliers and we you know they're supposed to buy our manufacturing or something this is a recipe for a complete disaster for collapse of society and so we don't want to be the british empire we want to be americans we had a revolution

against the british empire the american system and the british empire the american system and the british British idea, the British imperial idea, are the two contrary tendencies in world affairs, always. So if you go back and forgive me, I don't know the timeline on this, but you're saying before the Kennedys were assassinated, this is the way the U.S. used to be, very protectionist of their own industry, but trying to help, you know, draw a trade in from strong neighbors. Am I oversimplifying that or is that? It's slightly oversimplified. You're right, but the point is that those good policies and successful policies were initiated and reinitiated by the best leadership. So, for example, in the 1920s after the death of Harding, we had Coolidge and then who,

and we were in the hands of Wall Street and the Bank of England. And they were working to develop fascism in Europe. You know, they were doing all kinds of things wrong. At certain times before Lincoln, we had, for 30 years, we had a free trade under the dominance of southern slave owners who were closely tied into the British Empire. They sold all their cotton to England, or most of it. And they didn't want protection, they didn't want us to develop. But in general, especially after the U.S. won the Civil War, after the Union victory,

the Lincoln administration established during that conflict a policy of strong protectionism and a whole set of measures to develop a labor force and an agricultural success, with science and an education through in the country. I go through all this in my, in my volume one, volume two. But from then on, this was our, this was our set policy. You know, it was taken down by, you know, in the Clinton years, Republicans and Democrats both took it down under the control. They weren't, who was setting that policy?

Basically, it's a British policy with the bankers in the northeast of the country and other places, the Anglo-American establishment versus America's interests. So in general, we did have this policy, and it was successful. And that's the only way that other countries ever developed either. No country developed by free trade. Britain had the most protected industries of all until they, you know, finally in mid-19th century, they tried, they had some sort of a free trade policy, but especially they wanted other countries to have no defenses against British cheap goods so they could destroy any competition and dominate countries and rip them all.

off in an unbalanced trade, get raw materials cheaply and sell manufactured goods and sell dope and and have cheap labor all over the world. That's their policy. So free trade, no country developed into a manufacturing and other types of power under free trade. Never happened. I don't know why maybe it's my education, but when I hear free trade, I hear a good thing. And when you talk about free trade, I hear the complete opposite. Well, let's let's go through. I'm going to give you an example of how this actually worked. I'm working on volume three of my book series, Who We Are.

And I want to show you the coordination. This is talking about the 1890s. And there was a period of prosperity, but punctuated by a depression in the middle. But largely the success of that decade with tremendous new machines and vast steel production and all kinds of production, was based on a high tariff. William McKinley was the congressional leader who wrote the tariff in 1890

that protected our steel industry and some other industries. It created the tin plate industry completely from scratch. That's where you use for tin cans. We didn't have that at all. That tariff established it. So the government took lots of measures to develop our industry. So I want to talk about the coordination between our country, where McKinley, that same guy, became president in 1897,

coordination between our country, which was under this strict protectionist regime, and Russia, which was a completely different form of government. It was a kind of an empire under a czar, under a king, and it was much more backward. But there was great similarities and tremendous connection between the two countries. Both of them wanted to develop. They were jealous of their sovereignty, and they wanted to have progress.

And the leader that came up in Russia in the 1890s was named Sergei Vita, W-I-T-T-E. And he was the Minister of Finance, the great policymaker. And Russia, in that decade, coordinated in many ways. with the United States for the mutual benefit and success of both countries. Witte, right off when he got to be finance minister, put through, actually the year before then, in 1891, he put through a protective tariff. And then in 1892, he started a transcontinental railroad called the Trans-Siberian Railroad, 5,000 miles from Moscow to the Pacific Ocean to develop the eastern part of Russia,

just like we had developed the West going to the Pacific with the Transcontinental Railroad. In both cases, U.S. and Russia, these were government enterprises. There was private companies involved, but they were national enterprises of the two countries. And Vita was a protectionist. So he and McKinley, President McKinley and the policy leader in Russia, Vita, were the two leading economic nationalists. That is, their countries have the right to become more prosperous by getting more manufacturing, higher skills, converting over a man. mass of ignorant peasants into modern skilled workers and family farmers. That's the idea.

And that's the progress that they were looking forward to. Now, Russia wanted to invite foreign capital to invest in Russia, to build factories there that would teach Russian workers, you know, modern skills, alongside the of Russian factories that were coming up under the protection of tariffs. Russia did not want to import cheap consumer goods. That would kill their industries. Then they couldn't produce for themselves. They couldn't compete with that. But they did want foreign investment in that way. And the United States wanted to sell machines, wanted to sell steel rails. And so the way we coordinated with Russia is we built a lot of the components for the

Trans-Siberian Railroad. Westinghouse set up a factory in Russia to build air brakes. I don't know if you're how familiar you are with their history of railroads, but you can't have modern railroads without that invention, along with electric signaling. That allows you to go fast and to carry a lot of freight and so forth. So that was instrumental in building this transcontinental railroad. We sold tons and thousands of tons of rails out of Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio and other equipment to the Russians for that railroad. In 1897, also, steel experts from Pittsburgh went to

Russia and built their first great modern steel mill in a town called Mariupol. It was recently part of Ukraine. It was recaptured by the Russians. In those days, it was part of Russia. And they built this fantastic steel mill with American up-to-date technology. And so we're providing them the machines, the technology, and the capital goods. Oh, and 750 something like that, locomotives built in Philadelphia by the Baldwin locomotive company. Fantastic machines. Sold all over the world, really, but that was a big part of their market. You can still see ads in Russian for the Baldwin locomotives. So we were encouraging and helping to promote Russia's advance into this continental power. They wanted to go, the strategy of Vita and the progressive people in Russia was to build out to the

Pacific and to get the work with the nationalists in China to start developing modern times in China. Now, of course, the British were totally fearful that they were going to get kicked out of Asia. All they did in Asia was to loot people. The French, the same way. But the British in particular had a strategy of keeping China weak and undeveloped. And so what the British did to counter this was to make a treaty with Japan.

They built warships for Japan in British shipyards. They made a treaty with Japan in the early 20th century, a military treaty. And then Japan launched a war against Russia that destroyed a lot of the political basis for Russia. Russia's further development and opened the road to a communist takeover in Russia. That was the British strategy. They also wanted to destroy Russia and destroy Germany to stop a peace between the United States, Russia, Germany, China, and all the major countries, which was the U.S. strategy. Our strategy was peace and progress of the nations.

The same thing, I'll give you another example of this. McKinley had a program for, as president, had a program that had been earlier developed by President Benjamin Harrison and James Blaine, Secretary of State, a policy, a program to build railroads all the way from the United States down to Argentina, working with the countries in Latin America to do that. And all those countries started building those railroads to link up with this network. Our U.S. Army engineers were major players in developing the map for this. And the idea of it was that we would have reciprocal tariff agreements with all those countries so that we would have a zone of industrial progress and development. Latin America is full of resources. the idea was that they should develop into manufacturing countries

and not simply be places that could be looted and have cheap labor and backwardness. So as part of this whole strategy, in 1900, McKinley's president, the American industrial people in, again, in Pennsylvania and Ohio mainly, provided the components to build the first massive modern steel mill in Latin America. Where was that? In Monterey, Mexico. It's called the Monterey Foundry. And another major steel mill was not built in Latin America until Franklin Roosevelt and Brazil together built a great steel mill in Brazil in the 1940s. But this was to build, it was the strategy of the Mexican nationalists who were friendly with the United States was to build up industry on the basis of skills in Mexico.

This was protected. The steel mill was protected by government tariffs and subsidies. It was a private enterprise, but it was heavily protected by the country. And it was favored by the American nationalists, because we want peace with Mexico. Don't we want them to be a developed country, to be a country of success and prosperity? So at the same time, another fellow named Edward Doheny, who built the oil industry in Southern California. He discovered the oil there and built up the industry, went into Mexico, same year in 1900, and developed the oil industry of Mexico. Again, for Mexican use, why shouldn't they have used their own resources?

What was the point of that especially was to use petroleum as a fuel for railroads instead of coal? They actually imported coal into Mexico from Wales and from northeastern USA, very, very inefficient. So the plan was, let's develop Mexico's resources and also Venezuela's to power the train. that we're going to use to develop our whole continent. McKinley had this idea of labor peace. We want peace among ourselves, Lincoln said, peace among ourselves and with all nations, the second inaugural address.

So what's the idea, how do you get labor peace? How did, you know, I'll tell you, this is a fascinating incident that how McKinley got into Congress. In his district in Ohio, there was a coal miner strike because they were trying to cut the wages and they were terribly dangerous conditions. They went on strike. The company brought in scabs, replacement workers, and there was violence. I think that one of the mines was set on fire.

And a lot of the workers were arrested, the strikers. McKinley, who's a conservative Republican, was a lawyer, and he just had started running for Congress. He took the case of the striking minors, and he went before the court, and he said, yeah, we don't like violence. How do you want to prevent this violence? You know people die in those coal mines and preventable deaths? Make it good conditions. You don't have to have that. Pay them well. They can't live when you cut their wages. Look at those families. They're dying out there.

You want to prevent violence? Make the conditions better. All but one of those people was acquitted. That's American justice because we have jury trials, you know. And that's how he got into Congress. That was his philosophy. Everybody should be protected. You know, he was in the civil war.

He saw people died to protect our government. And the government owed, them a chance to have a decent life. It doesn't mean the government owns the industries. It means that our nation has the mission of improvement. The contrary idea is cheap labor, the imperial idea. There was a coup d'etat that overthrew the McKinley government in our country. First, a war was forced on them by this imperial faction. Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, Henry Adams, Admiral Mahan. Their idea was in line with the British, that the U.S. should become an empire and have a war against Spain, grab Cuba, grab the Philippines, and they drummed up this huge warfure

against the Spanish in Cuba in particular, and finally broke the will of McKinley, who was trying desperately to stop this from happening, this war. We have had peace for a whole generation since the Civil War. And once that was put through, Teddy Roosevelt went on to represent this imperial faction. And McKinley, he got, they did some blackmail to get him on the ticket as a vice presidential running mate with McKinley, his enemy in 1900 for the second term of McKinley. And then shortly after they were inaugurated, McKinley was murdered. And Teddy Roosevelt became president and completely changed the policy of the country.

Went along with the British, got us allied to the British Empire. He said directly the English-speaking peoples should rule the world, should tell the backward peoples how to behave. and he cut off our good relations with Latin America, cut off our good relations with all the countries in Eurasia that we had been friends with. He got us, worked with the King of England, Edward the Seventh, to get us into the war, the great, terrible World War I,

and then out of that World War II. So this is, this is, this, was the first big shift that got us into the disaster that we've been in, you know, in recent times. There are three, at least three presidents tried to reverse this. One was Harding elected after the, he's a protectionist and a man of peace. He did died mysteriously. He tried to make arrangements with the Soviet Union for industrial development, even though he was anti-communist. Because it's Russia. Who cares? It's none of our business how other countries are governed. Tsarism, communism, whatever, right? That's up to them.

We show the world what we're going to do to build up our country, and we want to share technology to make the world better. That's the way reality works. People say, oh, that's too idealistic. Well, that's how we were successful. FDR definitely based his point of view about progress on this 19th century nationalism, and Kennedy the same.

So. i'm sure the audience everybody's waiting for me i'm i'm like okay when you tell the different ways of russia soviet union united states cooperating i feel like today none of that gets talked about i've i've said this to matt lots actually when the last time i was on he was talking about Russia's selling or Soviet Union, forgive me, Anton, whichever one it was, or both, whatever, selling Alaska to the United States. And I was like, what? For the Soviets, yeah.

Yeah, I was like, what? I don't know if I just glazed over that at some point. I'm like, gee, for a country we're supposed to hate. There was a lot of relations with them. And as you talk more, I'm like, it sounds like we were working with everybody. And the world I've grown up in feels like everybody is your enemy. and that there's only winners and losers, if you would. And I forget what guest it was just recently talked about,

or maybe I just thought afterwards. But, you know, like, the best we can hope for is to coexist with our neighbors and to grow. And, you know, it's everything you were just talking about. It's like, you know, they want to be ruled by a czar. Okay. They want to have communism. All right.

We're not going to do that. But, you know, like, we're trying. to get better as a nation and we'll bleed out some of our and bleed out's probably a port to porters words but we'll uh you know bear or give out some of the fruits of our labors you know because what you're talking about is they're building a railroad across siberia and we have the technology to help that and so off goes our technology they build something they put in tariffs to help protect those industries so that russians can thrive but they grow up and as they get more skilled they might develop something we need and now it comes back in the same way and they

come develop that here and vice versa i feel like that's kind of the partnership that's called civilization you know the the uh if you if you look at the uh the the the actual the world trade and technology reality. We need initiatives to take the world ahead very strongly, almost desperately in many, many major areas

to fight poverty, to fight disease to fight the just the way, way backward infrastructure deficit that we have and then exist in many parts of the world. And so when we see China developing building infrastructure in South America and Africa, you know, people have all kinds of ways of criticizing that. we doing? We're not even building in our own country. That's a form of insanity. When Kennedy was president and when he was a senator before that, he was very passionate about how the U.S. should put itself on the side of foreign nationalists, especially African nationalists, Arab nationalist, Middle East, other countries, Southeast Asian nationalists, people that

wanted to build up their countries. And we were concerned, as he was, about the lure of communism at that time, from the Soviet Union and from other quarters. How would we compete with them, with that lure? How would we have friends that would be on our side in the world? And what the U.S. had gotten into under Truman and under the Dulles brothers, who controlled a lot of the Eisenhower, power policy, we had gotten into an alliance with the empires, the Western European envires, particularly, well, the British, the French, the Dutch, against the population of the

world. And the communists, all he had to do was to say, well, we want to help you develop your dams and your steel mills or whatever. And the U.S. would say, well, that's socialism. The governments in those countries can't get involved in helping to develop those countries. They can't set limits to imports. They can't control their own currency. They can't have a national bank. Well, whose ideology is that?

Is that capitalism? No, it's the British Empire. It's our enemy. our country wasn't developed that way we we our industries were always protected when they developed and so kennedy uh sought to make allies among these countries i i've talked a lot about his friendship with ghana where they built this great dam with the u.s assistance we're trying to do the same thing in uh in in indonesia we did build a great dam in in venezuela one of the world's largest hydroelectric projects there so look at this situation now in in in the with these so-called drug drug smugglers and and the the the hated regime hated by you know by the establishment and probably not not a good regime in in Venezuela what are we doing there

to protect our interests. Well, the last thing you want to do when you have the collapse of a society in major parts of Latin America from drug gangs and from poverty and from the collapse of U.S. influence, collapse of support, When you have that kind of a crisis in the region,

the last thing you want to do is start bombing these countries. What is that calculated to do? It doesn't taste. It's like the emperor's new clothes. A little kid said, well, the emperor hasn't got any clothes on it. Oh, you're not supposed to say that. Well, in this situation, all you have to do is just look at any recent or earlier history, and you'll say, if you bomb countries like that, if you attack them

militarily, you're guaranteed to fail. You're guaranteed to lose influence. You're guaranteed to cause terrorism. You're guaranteed to have societies collapse further and have drug gangs rule them. And so that must be the reason why they do it. I'm not saying that's the reason that Donald Trump's is doing it. I don't think he designed the policy. In this situation, you'd have to say whatever is going on in his mind or inside the White House or whatever. It's not his policy.

And he's no more the president in that sense than Biden was. If you want to have an American policy, you have to go for American interests. American interest is in the development of industry, science, technology, skilled labor, capital-intensive industries, modern agriculture in those countries, by cooperation with all the countries, regardless of the government. simple really you know when so that's that's the that's an american policy for the benefit of the region and for this spread of our influence where's the railroad that connects on all high-speed trains to connect our country with all these regions we don't even have that in our own country

we're so backward so the i would say uh and i def i would challenge anybody, that I would venture to say that the reason for having these wars that we have had, I would say a deeper reason for them is to destroy the influence and the legacy of the United States of America, even though the wars have been conducted with American bonds, and sometimes done by the government of the United States. All of these wars, the war against Russia, the war against the Palestinians, all of these wars and wars all over Africa and so forth. Every one of those is something against American interests

and designed, long-term designed against civilization. Civilization means building up the power to produce, the power to raise the culture of the population, and peaceful relations. No war is justified now in this age right now. This is, we've really, it's not a matter of idealism or utopia, nothing to do with it. We just, we can't afford to have this kind of policy, the war policy. So, anyway, rather than debate these things, in a sense, I'm 82 years old. I'm working on that. I've been working for 50 years to develop the facts of this kind of history.

And so I'm dedicating myself now to finishing this third volume. It's going to take maybe another nine months to a year. and to show how we did have success as a country to prove it. With Donald Trump, he's a guy who talks about tariffs, protectionism, trying to end wars. That's right. I mean, you know, like a lot of the things you've been talking about, would you agree with that or do you see something else? No, when he ran for president in 2016, in his campaign, he set, he kind of lit the establishment's pants on fire by talking about the ending free trade system by which we'd lost our industry and normalizing relations with Russia. and the Europeans, you know, famously, and the NATO leaders and the people in the liberal establishment went crazy.

Of course, the working people of the country love this stuff. Nobody, you know, you said a while ago that the way you phrased it, you know, they want communism, they want czars. that's none of our business. Well, did they vote for these things? Did we really vote for, what about us? Did we vote for free trade? Did we vote for deindustrializing, taking our factories down? Yeah, they've taught our kids that industry is evil, that they, it's too, it's dirty, you know,

and in Africa you can't do that, you can't have dams because the rhinoceroses won't get a proper drink of water. They, you know, a human being is too many people in there. the world he taught them all this this foolishness complete foolishness you know you want to you have clean cities yeah you need electric cities you need mass transit you solve problems with technology but but you have a chance to save human life if you care about that so this people didn't vote for what what happened to this country are they they murdered our president they murdered the next president his brother they murdered martin luther king who might have been the next

president after that and so we didn't have a where was the vote do we vote for that no did we vote to have this change to stop the the progress of ourselves and and get into these wars no that wasn't nobody voted for that you've been focused on this i think if i of um 50 years roughly yeah i wrote some other i wrote something some things from a different standpoint earlier not the different philosophy but i i did some pioneering work on getting behind the this establishment the eastern establishment what is this i wrote the book treason in america from aaron burr to averil armin a kind of fan family history of this Eastern Established.

Then Ian Webster Tarpley wrote the book, George Bush, the unauthorized biography. And part of that was the story of how this same establishment that had been anti-American since the American Revolution, how they sponsored Hitler, along with the British, all the way up to the beginning of the war. And my father was sued the bank that George Bush Sr.'s father was a manager of in New York, who was collaborating with building up the Hitler regime.

That was back in the 1930s. So I got into an analysis of the enemy establishment in the context. contest between them and the American patriots, the American nationalists. But more and more, I was thinking along the lines, we've got to flesh out who we are, our side, the people that built the country, not all good, right? We had this decimation of the the American Indians. We put up with slavery, left over from the British Empire. We, we, we, you know, and so, but, but, you know, this, this is, we, we, we got to find out what we did right. How, who did that? One of the, I'll give you an example in chapter, chapter seven of

Volume 2 that just came out this year of who we are, is about how the steel industry was organized in the United States. It was created from scratch using protective tariff laws, but the nationalists set up the companies. The first steel company in America, a modern steel company to mass-produce steel was set up by the Pennsylvania Railroad who were nationalists. These are people in Philadelphia who had this economic nationalist philosophy.

And they set up the Pennsylvania Steel Company and they organized some other people. All of them patriotic people that have been part of the Union War effort. And they were all against free trade. They felt the British Empire was the enemy. of humanity.

And they built up our steel industry. They fostered Carnegie. He came in in the second round of this thing under their help. They gave him contracts and everything. So this is a deliberate project of the country to create a steel industry. That's how we did these things. We built canals and railroads. They were community projects or government projects.

all the railroads had had community money no railroad was built just by some guy wanting to make money and that was all it was about never happened that way so hmm you mentioned your father forgive me because i want to make sure i got this right father was sued by a bank that no he sued them he sued them yeah my father was jacob jacob he was he was was a Jewish immigrant from Latvia. It was part of Russia. 1898, he was born. Came here in 1909. Became a lawyer, worked in New York. He was a Franklin Roosevelt Democrat. And when Hitler came in, same time Roosevelt came in, Franklin Roosevelt, they set up a boycott against Nazi Germany in New York and other places to try to get people to stop buying German goods. And my father was the lawyer and strategist for that boycott. And at the same time, he started lawsuits against certain companies that were international companies, owned by the Hitler government and Wall Street banks.

One of the biggest culprits in this in New York was the Brown Brothers Harriman Bank, in which George Bush's father was a manager, Prescott Bush. And what they were doing was Hitler had put out a decree saying that German companies that had borrowed money abroad could not pay the people that they owed money to they you know people would buy a bonds from a company to finance them and they were supposed to pay interest and so so germans of hitler said no you got to pay that money instead don't pay the bondholders pay the hitler government so we can buy weapons and stuff so my father went and sued this the north german lloyd shipping

company, which is jointly owned by the Nazi government and Brown Brothers Harriman units of that bank in New York. And it sued them in a municipal court in New York demanding that they pay my father's client, a lady in the Bronx, $30 that that company owed her on a bond that she had a $1,000 bond from that ship company. And my father arranged with the sheriff in New York that they would put a writ attaching a 30,000-ton German liner, the Europa, which had docked in New York port, and lock it up until that $30 was paid. He won this case, and he got them to establish a precedent that all these decrees from Hitler were, of course, were not operative in foreign countries.

I think how are they going to enforce some nonsense like that. The opposing lawyer in that first case of my father's in the municipal court in New York, the opposing lawyer was John Foster Dulles, later Secretary of State, brother of Allen Dulles. And Alan and John Foster Dulles were lawyers for the four leading banks in New York that were all tied into the British crown and city of London. And we're all promoting one way or another promoting this Hitler policy. They liked it. They liked fascism. They liked the idea that labor has no rights, that you should be able to police, countries and sometimes you want to have, you know, total freedom for corporations to do whatever you want, but you also need to have strong police to make sure the people don't do anything against their interests, against the corporate interests, these monopoly interests. So this is, there's fascism.

So that's really, that's our, it really came out of what my father was was involved in was, was fighting against the arm of British imperialism into American life, which largely came in through Wall Street and through Boston, the Boston, you know, old families in Boston who were financiers and importers and through the southern slave owners. It's all tied in with the British. And so it was pretty exciting cases in the 30s that my father was involved in. He was in U.S. Army intelligence during World War II. Forgive me. I don't really need to, you know, I'm like, how long did your father live for?

I guess I'm kind of curious. Did he live to be an old man? No. Unfortunately, people from Northern Europe in the Baltic area, I think, I have heard, tend to eat smoked meats. This is what was true. he got stomach cancer. It's quite common. And he died at the age of 57 when I was only 12 years old. So I had to, I learned all about him. He used to take me into his study and tell me about

stuff. He spoke Russian and German, both as native languages from Latvia. And he still subscribed to the Soviet Encyclopedia. And they would send yearbooks to him for him. from Russia. And once he showed me a notice that was sent out from Moscow to subscribers of this yearbook encyclopedia. And the notice from Moscow said, subscribers must tear out so-and-so entry in the encyclopedia and paste over it this that we've sent you.

Because it's been determined that so-and-so was a traitor and so we're going to change the history of it and this is now the official history so he left and he showed me you know how this is how foolish a government like that is to think it's not just a dictatorship there it's so it's it's it's childish in a way right to think that foreign people could be coerced somehow into following along with some stupid party line some obvious folly like that and so this is part of my education a little bit of humor about the way human beings conduct themselves and something also about what power politics is about from from this from what i learned about what he was involved in you know in the 30s well i find

The reason I ask about your father, you know, I guess in my brain, I'm like, man, if he lived to be an old age, I'd be curious the conversations you had with them because, you know, like I look at what you've done in your lifetime and culminating, I think, and forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but who we are and trying to decipher that to give to, I assume, the next generation of this is who we are. Go be that. That's right. We are builders of civilization. That's what Americans are all about. That's what we should be about. If we're anything, that's what we are. Otherwise, what's our identity. What my father and mother gave me that's really enduring was a love for classical music and drama, particularly classical music, you know, Beethoven and Bach. They took me to concerts, you know, I didn't even get some of this, you know, when I was a little kid. But my father taught a scientific Russian at Caltech. And so we had a lot of very interesting people in our, you know, in my childhood that they were in touch with. but the beauty of of uh what we what people have done in the past to make to make life better to make people better was really impressed on me and made for a very happy childhood well if i go back to one of the things you said fact there's a faction who want to retard this process right

human flour is I'm going to space on the word not flourization but what's the word I'm looking for here Anton flourishing flourishing human flourishing they're right they want to dumb us down they want it they want I don't know I just look around

and I see that everywhere and one of the arguments I have all the time is whether you know I actually just had a listener say you know I don't I know you don't like the word hope I'm like no I hope I've never said that I'm a eternal option And I look across the screen here to get a man who's spending his life to finish who we are. And I go, well, you spent longer than most of us staring at this question.

Is there, it's a poor question because I believe there's always hope in the future. Yeah. But you know, you're looking down forever wars and, uh, um, a retardation of the population, a simplification of who we are, and a loss of creativity, and a loss of human ingenuity and skills. And yet is, you know, like, I don't know, is there something that we should be grasping right now to help us get out of the quagmire we seem to be in? Yeah, I think one thing is the title of my book is who we are, America's fight,

for universal progress from Franklin to Kennedy. So the best of our leaders were, in other countries, the same way in Canada and, you know, France and England, too. You know, people who were looking out for their own country's welfare and wanting to advance mankind. We're excited about making their mark in the world, you know, inventing something, doing something that would, you know, live on after them. that they were proud of achievement. So one aspect of this is the idea that industry, modern skilled industry, which is quite complex, is a tremendous school for the people.

If you have a huge number, of places and opportunities for skilled work. If you're demanding labor to come in and have some way of bringing in new workers, beyond just needing them and saying, we're going to hire, and then you're disappointed because you don't have a skilled labor force. Well, that's part of, you know, we have to have public education. Again, we have to have apprenticeship programs and a lot of help. and a lot of other programs.

But the industry itself, the life of productive work, industry farming science, that life is the great school for a moral existence, for a purpose in life. You're producing something. You're proud of that. You're part of creating things for the next generation. and to help people now.

And that's something that's needed all over the world. We have to create tens of millions of new jobs in our own country, particularly on building completely renewed in modern infrastructure, but also in other countries. We have to be part of that. And that's the way to do it. That's the way, in other words, this is something, this is a policy that the public wants, regardless of political party.

I think you can agree with that, right? I mean, this is something that cuts across it. It embarrasses the leadership in the United States. This idea that the public wants to have industrial jobs, wants to have family farms, wants to have progress of living standards, wants to have high wages. That's an embarrassment to the leadership of both parties, because they're not for that. They're for, you know, offshore banking and, you know, health care, which is largely the money goes to insurance companies and all that. I don't know if I can speak for what government wants,

but what I see is almost a nanny state. They're creating government where you rely on government for everything. Well, but what do you get from the government? Wow, but that's what you rely. I mean, I mean, how much of the population in north america is productively employed what percentage of people are productively employed in the united states and canada or and put mexico into it too people that have you know people live in the subsistence way if they're in backward farming

you know as farm workers or as minimal wage earners in some sort of textile mill maybe in Mexico, let's say. They had some, but look at the United States and Canada. A large part of the population is, in reality, unemployed. If you're selling, if you're working in a fast food place, you know, and you're working in some other service, getting a minimal income, how productive is that? If you're working in an office, in most industries or most sectors of the population, of the economy, offices are vastly overloaded

compared to how you could have people working productively. There's a lot of people in minimum, you know, minimal, minimally or absolutely unproductive jobs. So when you say productive jobs, you mean building things? I mean creating things? I mean creating things and creating things that are needed by the population that improve the lives of the population. and that also build the future of the population.

So what, when you say those in a row, what comes to, like, what are those things? Well, for example, what's the effect of having compared China to the United States, where in China you have freight trains that can carry freight at two. 200 miles an hour. The United States, the average speed for freight cargo is 25 miles an hour. What is the effect on the economy, on the standard of living of that discrepancy? It's devastating. Imagine if you could have a virtual conveyor belt in your economy.

economy. People have already invented these things, modular ports, cargo handling, and high-speed trains, and corridors of shipment, transshipment in different ways, intermodal transportation. If you have high-speed transportation coupled with really powerful, modern electric grids, particularly with development of nuclear energy. There's nothing you couldn't do. There's no problems that you couldn't solve. You know, you have water shortages somewhere. That's ridiculous. The world is covered with water. Move it where you need it. You can desalinate seawater. You can move vast quantities of freshwater or pouring into the ocean from all over North America, north of, you know, north of sea. Seattle all the way up to the top.

You just have to do the work, do the program. So imagine if we had an economy that was geared up on purpose to solve our problems. It's not even looked at. Come on, think about this. Imagine a city. Can you think of a city that has really terrible traffic jams? Yes. Give me an example.

Well, I mean, L.A. would be the prime example. It comes to my mind. I was shocked when I went back there. I grew up around there. And, you know, 50 miles from the center of the city at noon, there's a traffic jam. Why not have not only high-speed trains all over the region, including in the city, but some other forms of transportation. and then some lunatic in the population or in the media.

I don't care if it's my neighbor. He's just as much of a lunatic as the news media will say, well, people want their cars. That's a lunatic. Of course they want their cars. What happens to their cars if two-thirds of the people don't have to be on the highway and they can take really beautiful fast transportation? Doesn't that free up the highways for you to take your car where you want to take it?

It's obvious. People are lunatics in our country. Both countries, Canada and United States, Canada, each country, you know, Canada points the finger in America, USA. But there are just as much lunatics up there, the, you know, this whole, the green nonsense. Yeah, I want, I want nature. I want to have, I love wilderness. Let's solve problems. We need power, right?

We need, we need advanced science. We need to go and investigate the universe. Isn't that our imperative to go to the stars? When you go back to the 25 miles an hour train, at one point in time, that would have been high speed. No, it wasn't. We went faster than that. We went faster than that.

Yeah. We degenerated. Come on. We have, in the United States, the peak of railroads was around, I don't know, around 1920. In the 20s. And in the 1950s and early 60s, the financiers who got control of the auto industry destroyed public transportation in the big cities on purpose, supposedly to make cars the big, the big, the big. thing you have to have a car and live in a suburb but we went backwards in this you know people say well how okay so then how do we start going forward tell the truth tell the truth even if it's like the emperor's new clothes if you see something like that everybody can you know anybody that travels or knows people who travel knows that other countries have in Europe and in Asia, they have high-speed trains. Countries all over the world are in the space program, right?

India is big in the space program. Mars, moon, South Africa. What are we doing? Where's our high-speed trains? Where's our modern times? Why can't we have that? Well, the public doesn't want that. They want to take care of business here at home.

It's like, I don't know, somebody, you know, using a machine that generates noise to block out even the most obvious basic thinking. It's ridiculous. us. We used to, up to a certain point in our country's history, we solved problems by the development of technology. I'm not, and so when even that word was kidnapped, right? And to now it means cell phone or something like that. But technology, I would say, if you are in certain realms means control right like they're going to control you right when you say it's been kidnapped i would i would say that that's what they point to yeah they point to the negative negative sides of it the the the

central bank digital currency the digital id the surveillance state that's what they point to and what you're pointing to is we could make life better with technology and that's how we started out more freedom you the you need the government can do certain things the the people of a nation can do certain things through their government they can they can sponsor great projects they can have legislation that regulates industry in a good way you know to for example for safety of things. Food and drug safety. That's a good thing. It may not be a good thing if they're in cahoots with, you know, people that are ripping the public off. So you need to regulate the regulators. But that, you don't have to get tied up in knots on these kind of things. You have to

say, and this is what the last thing I want to say here, because I got a sign off. Sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the real, what's the idea of a republic? And Canada doesn't have it, and we kind of gave it up in the USA. The idea of a republic is that the nation is for the benefit of the people who live there. The highest idea of the republic is that the people, who live in the Republic are excited about human progress. And, of course, that's a human sympathy.

That's our, that's who we really are. That's our nature. It's our nature to be sympathetic to other human beings. And so the Republic at its, at its heart, is really, It means it's a concept of self-government for the benefit of the people. And that extends into the realm of economics. It extends into all realms of life. If you have companies, like you were talking about, companies that,

big monopoly companies, they're in cahoots with the government. you've got censorship, they've got surveillance, they're tied in with wars all over the place. Is that a republic? Is that a democracy? No. I would say that flies in the face of everything you just said. Right.

It's not for the benefit. What is the actual governance of the society? The governance of the society has to be for the benefit of the people. And if you're actually governed from outside the elected government by private power, by a concert of powers operating internationally like financiers do and like NATO does and things like that, you're not free. You're not, you don't have self-government. It's just like black people were governed by white people.

people in the South before the Civil War. They didn't have, the black people didn't have self-government. Our country only, any country only has self-government if it has strength and self-sufficiency in terms of manufacturing power and it's strong enough to do what the people need to have done by their nation, by their government, and not have to have to bow to the will of private and unaccountable and in many respects secret uh you know oligarchs or hierarchs uh our government our plan of government in the united states was first of all to be written and to be open to the public to you know who is going to

governing and they're accountable to you and the old the old system of empire was you never really knew who is who who is governing society it's all it's all from behind the scenes anton if people wanted to buy your books where can they find them amazon self-published so amazon sells them i have kindle The electronic book, which is cheap, but you don't get the feel of a nice big book. You don't get the feel of the book, yes. The first volume was about 450, I don't know, pages. The second volume is 600 pages, 44 pages of pictures, I think.

And it's a bargain, $25, $10 for the Kindle. But it's unique in the sense that nobody has ever detailed the fight between these two sides over developing the country, developing the society with industry, with science, with this policy that was successful. Appreciate you hopping on and giving me some time. And, well, just thanks again. Thank you so much. It was a lot of fun.