Shaun Newman Podcast - #993 - Susan Kokinda

Episode Date: February 2, 2026

Susan Kokinda is a long-time political organizer and author associated with Promethean Action, a movement founded in 2024 by former Lyndon LaRouche collaborators to defy oligarchy, revive American industrial capacity, and promote the "American System" of tariffs, manufacturing revival, and producer culture—particularly in the Midwest—while supporting Donald Trump's economic agenda against globalist financial elites and British imperial influences. Based in Michigan, where she serves as Coalitions Vice Chairman in the Republican Party, she contributes regular commentary, Monday Briefs, and classes through the group's website and YouTube, analyzing current events like Trump's policies on NATO, Greenland, and Davos as battles to restore U.S. sovereignty and dismantle entrenched cartels.Tickets to Cornerstone Forum 26’: https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone26/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] Get your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCulloch. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Pradnik. 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. Welcome to the podcast. Folks, happy Monday. How's everybody doing today?

Well, I tell you what, I'm sitting here. And the current price of silver, she has dropped. A buck-6. No, I mean, if you go back long enough, it is still way up. Let's not kid ourselves. And I'm excited because, well, not excited about that, but one of the things that is going to be new in the ad reads here coming Wednesday is integrated wealth management. They deal with people's money. And, you know, they've been sending me some things on silver and gold. And they're going to be making appearance on the podcast here in the coming weeks. And I think that's going to be interesting.

I know there's been lots of questions and lots of people going, you're watching the prices of silver and gold and everything else. And once again, I'm not a financial guy. I just pay attention now to the prices as it was skyrocketing up. Now we've seen a big drop. We'll see what the days and weeks lead ahead. I'm interested when integrated wealth management comes on to talk to you guys about some of the things they do and see in their Calgary base.

So that's cool. They are supporting the podcast here coming starting in February. So you can imagine where their heads at. So that's going to be interesting. But here, before we get too far into this, the deadline for RRSPs, March 2nd, and Silver Gold Bowl can help you with the RRSP, TFSA, RIF, Kids, RESP, by adding physical gold and silver to your account. And this year's deadline, once again, March 2nd. So that is now like, what is that, a month away? It's not far off now.

You know what? Sun's shining. and you can almost taste spring, can't you? Oh man, I love this time of year. I know it's the dark days of winter, but it's close. If you're looking at silver gold, precious metals, buying, selling, or storing precious metals, text or email, gram for details with any questions you have around investing in precious metals for feature silver deals exclusively offered to the SMP listener, silvergoldbill.

com.com.com is where you can find them at Bow Valley Credit Union. When it comes to banking, yes, they've opened up. new lending and advice center in Red Deer. So Red Deer folks, that's new to you. And it's all about lending deposits and real financial advice. You can open accounts, talk through lending options, and get help with banking, all in a space, designed for conversations, not transactions. If you want smarter banking with gold, silver, Bitcoin, sell money, and personal freedom, BVCU is now in Red Deer. And for all your banking needs here in Alberta, go to Bow ValleyCU.com. Profit River, when it comes to firearms here in Canada, folks, they are the major retailer.

of firearms, optics, and accessories. They serve all of Canada, and you can find them at Profitriver.com. Carly Closs and the team over at Windsor Plywood, builders of the podcast studio table for everything Wood, these are the guys, and, well, I don't know, it isn't quite deck season. I know I'm getting ahead of myself.

I'm just, you know, I'm positive thinking here. When it comes to wood, and when deck season is upon us, look no further than Windsor Plywood here in Lloyd Minster, whether we're talking mantles, decks, windows, doors, podcast studios, podcast studio tables. Character would, folks. Stop into Windsor Plywood, Lloyd Minster. The Cornerstone Forum, March 28th.

Yes, it returns, and we've got a full lineup coming in for you. And, you know, I was saying this on the mashup on Friday, but I feel like I've got to change gears here. We've got 100, as I record this, so this, you know, obviously by the time this airs, it could be a little less than this. I assume it will be. 126 tickets left, okay? or 12 tables left.

That isn't a whole heck of a lot. And I'm going, if you're sitting there on the fence of whether or not you're going to come, I would say just grab a ticket sooner than later because once we sell this barn out, there's no stadium seating like we had in the arena where we can jam in an extra thousand. That is not the case on this one.

So you want to grab that ticket sooner rather than later. Of course, we've got Premier Daniel Smith coming. Neil Oliver, Tom Luongo, Alex Kraner, Vince Lanchi, Matt Eyre, Chad Prater, Karen Kutowsky, Sam Cooper, Larry C. Johnson, Mark Cohodas, yes, that's a new one, and Tom Bodrovics, and 222 minutes. So we have a full lineup now coming to the forum, March 28th. Hope to see you find folks there.

If you're listening or watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Rumble, X, Facebook, Substack, make sure to subscribe, make sure to leave a review. And consider becoming a paid member on Substack. That's the best way to try and support what I do. and well, you can always just watch there too. It's all free for the episodes coming up. Now, let's get on to that tale of the tape. Today's guest is a longtime political organizer,

an author who is associated with Promethean action. I'm talking about Susan Kokinda. So buckle up, here we go. Welcome to the Shaw Numa podcast. Today I'm joined by Susan Kokinda. Ma'am, thanks for hopping on. Well, thanks for having me. You know, I stumbled into some of your videos.

I don't know. Was it two weeks ago, three weeks ago, folks? I don't know. And then, you know, like I started watching some of your stuff. I'm like, who is this lady? I guess I'm just going to start there. Susan, tell us a little bit about yourself. Because I've been shared by my audience, a bunch of your work.

You know, I don't know how it comes to be, regardless. You can talk about it or not. but, you know, I'm becoming good friends or become good friends with Tom and Alex. And then, you know, kind of like worlds kind of collide, I guess, in my opinion. And so here you are. But for a lot of my audience, including myself, I'm like, who is Susan? Maybe Susan could tell us a little bit about herself before we get into some of the news of today. Sure.

Well, I can start with my current activity in Promethean Action. And Promethean Action launched itself a couple of years ago in early 20, because we felt it was absolutely critical for some of us who had a long political history, which I'll get into in a minute, to be able to freely communicate to the American people and the world the absolutely revolutionary nature of what Donald Trump was doing, that his attack on the globalists, his embrace of tariffs and other economic policies, which actually have a name called the American system, is something which many of us have been fighting for for over 50 years. And when Trump came along and began to advocate these ideas, which include the full corpus of

his anti-globalist policies against the perpetual wars, against free trade, for turning the United States back into a manufacturing superpower, and what they're saying, about the Republican Party, once again becoming the party of working people, as it was under Abraham Lincoln, those of us who created Promethean action wanted to be able to freely trumpet that those Trump ideas and show people the deeper historical implications of those ideas. And I would just say in terms of then the longer political history, I was attracted to the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche way back in 1971, because what I saw him talking about, which was something, and I was a young college student at that time trying to figure the world out after,

after frankly having had a bit of a traumatic experience in 1968 when I campaigned for Bobby Kennedy Sr. in California when he was shot. So that kind of upended my worldview there for a few few years, and I knew that something very wrong was happening in the United States, whether it was the assassinations, the abandonment of our commitment to scientific and technological progress, the rise of what was called the rock drug drug sex counterculture, and the environmentalist movement, that all was just against the grain in terms of what I thought this country was. And I ran into the ideas of LaRouche and began studying them and became a member of his organization because he was trying to figure out how, what is the antidote to what we were seeing happening

where the commitment to industry, the commitment to a productive working in middle class, the commitment to technological progress was starting to be eaten away at. And of course, you certainly saw a hammer blow taken to all of that in 1976 when Jimmy Carter came in with a full trilateral commission agenda. And for a few years in the LaRouche movement, we were, you know, examining different hypotheses in terms of, all right, what's the problem and how do you fix it? And yes, we studied Karl Marx and rapidly came to the conclusion that he didn't understand the problem and he didn't know how to fix it. But for our movement, there was a certain epiphany when we discovered in the mid-1970s that there was an entire body of economic knowledge which had been written out. And that was the American system of political economy, which was neither capitalist per se, which is all about money, or communist per se, which was just the flip side of it. and that the American system was really the antidote to the problems that the nation had,

that various figures throughout our history had been very clear in terms of those principles. Most of them are Republicans, some of them were Democrats, like John Kennedy. And so for decades, we fought to revive this American system idea as the fundamental basis for deciding what's right and what's wrong. Mr. LaRouche passed away shortly after in 2018, sorry, in 2018. And at that point, his commitment to what he called American exceptionalism, the fact that the United States had an indispensable role in the world because of the American system and because of the American Republic, that there were those in the organization who had a different idea.

And among those were his wife. his widow, Helga Zeppleroush. And so after a few years of tension, some of us just said, no, we're going our own way because we believe in the United States of America. We believe in the uniqueness of the American Revolution. And we saw in Donald Trump, for the first time, certainly in our lifetimes, somebody who was not only pursuing those policies, but had the courage to stand up to the unbelievable attacks that you come under when you actually advance those policies. So we've obviously gotten a lot of traction in the recent period because I think people sense that Trump is doing something quite revolutionary in his fight against the globalists.

and we're providing people with the kind of historical depth to understand just how revolutionary it is and just how important it is to rediscover that the entire body of American economic policy, known as the American system launched by Alexander Hamilton, had almost been buried for 100 years, and now it's back. I do need to say for legal reasons, although I think it should be clear from what I've already said, we have nothing to do with the organizations affiliated with Helga Zepplerush. And in this recent round of attacks that have suddenly appeared on myself and Promethean action, there's a certain lack of honesty in the sense that some of the things we're being accused of

are precisely the things we left that other organization because of. So that's a kind of broad stroke. I hope I've touched on the key points and I've probably provoked a few people. Well, maybe I'll just go to the thing I've been getting sent all bloody morning before I found the timing of it. I'm like, and this is this is super strange because, you know, like, I've never had you on the show. You know, like up until this point, we've never met. We've never talked. And, you know, honestly, it's been, it's been interesting.

And so the way I get tied into it. And I'm just going to read the post on X for everyone. It's been getting sent to me all morning. I assume it's going to continue to get sent to me. And it's by Andrea Schaefer. And it says almost 800,000 people have shared this video. And now it's one of your videos talking about, sorry, Lord Palmerston and Pierre Polly.

of quoting one of the things from it. We'll get to that in a second. Did you just buy into a Russian multi-polar Chinese hybrid warfare Saup? You have been informed. Promethean pack is rebranded LaRouche Pack, changed in 2024, part of the Linden-Laurush movement, a political network founded by LaRouche, 1922 to 2019, who began as a Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist in the 1940s, 50s,

before evolving into a unique ideology, emphasizing economic infrastructure, classical humanism, and anti-British conspiracies. The movement uses hierarchical cult-like Leninist structure for organizing followers. On Russia, it has pro-Kremlin leanings with affiliates like the Schiller Institute collaborating with Russian media to promote multipolar geopolitics, support Putin's policies and spread anti-Ukraine narratives. The PAC now has infiltrated Trump-aligned candidates and focuses on American citizens. system economics, raising $418,000 in 2023.

LaRouche Associates have appeared on Sean Newman podcast, Canadian Conservative, and collaborate with pro-Russian figures like Jackson Hinkle, whose hosts his own shows. The group primarily runs its own podcast, webcasts, Promethean Action, LaRouche organizations. And then it's got your video, they brought the war home, the British Playbook in Minneapolis. Your thoughts on that? Well, you know, first of all, I think I'm actually honored to now be getting the Donald Trump treatment, which is Russia, Russia, Russia, you know, because you have this thread that keeps emerging that you, in fact, one of the pieces that I saw that attacked me said, well, if you attack the British, that's a Russian talking point. And therefore, that means you're pushing Russian disinformation. I mean, figure that one out for me. You know, so it's it's the same, you know, it's the same line that they went after Donald Trump on, you know, drawing some bizarre connections and trying to claim that you're acting on behalf of Russia. Now, what I did notice in what you just read me is the phrase about anti-Ukraine propaganda, which might give you an idea in terms of where this stuff is coming from.

We've opposed the Ukraine. We've opposed the, we opposed the color revolution in 2014, which cooed the legitimate Ukrainian government and put in a bunch of pro-Nazi forces in Ukraine, which is what has led to the current crisis. And we happen to support Donald Trump's position on this, in which he has acknowledged that Russia has legitimate security concerns in this. So much of what is being thrown into the strategy. at this point about us could also be said about Donald Trump.

I was asked by one hostile individual, what is your position on Russia and Putin? And I said, our position is exactly what is in the new national security strategy of the White House and in the new national defense strategy of the Pentagon, which is Russia is not up there as our primary enemy. another nation that we have to contain if needed and otherwise deal with. So I think what you're seeing with this suddenly exploding at this point is the people who want to hang on to the old world, the geopolitical world in which the United States was the dumb giant for globalist imperial forces, and a lot of that does still come out of Great Britain and NATO.

And like Donald Trump, we think that's a really bad way to run the world, that you need a world of sovereign nations, and I might add not a multipolar world, a world of sovereign nations, where you look at each other country, you see where do our interests conflict? We need to deal with that, your diplomacy, hopefully no more than that,

where might we find common interests, and you do it nation by nation, as Donald Trump is doing. So if you sort of peel back the underlying assumption in most of these attacks, you'll find underlying, old-fashioned, neoconservative, globalist ideology, which is if you're not like John Bolton on the permanent war path against Russia and China, and gunning for war, then you must be a dupe of the communists, the Maoists, the Russians. And I just repeat, our policy toward these two countries is exactly what's in Donald Trump's recent documents. So if they have a problem with that, they have a problem with Donald Trump. And I think that's where this is all coming from. One question on the, you said it right off the hop. Yes, you did study Marxism, or Karl Marx,

I should say. And in here it talks about he began, talking about LaRouche. He began as a Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist in the 40s and 50s before evolving. When you say you did study it, like, was that just part of the LaRouche movement? Once again, I'm, I guess I look at the timeline. I'm like, well, you're part of the organization for close to 50 years. Yeah, if my math is doing correct. So I would feel like, let's talk about the LaRouche movement just for a quick sec before we get to today's. world because you spent majority of your lifetime a part of that. Yeah. So when you talk about studying Karl Marx, what does that mean? What it meant is we were trying to figure out how do you solve the problems that we were seeing that were being caused by what we now know is finance capitalism or a global financier elite. That wasn't that clear to us back in the early 1970s.

But we could see that there were problems already. emerging. And one of the people who we looked at in terms of how did he analyze it and what did he suggest the solutions were was Karl Marx. Now, we subsequently discovered once we discovered the American system that Karl Marx attacked the American system because frankly, if you want to look at Karl Marx's actual background, this gets back to our Lord Palmerston friend. And Palmerston was famous for creating radical movements throughout Europe and the United States to prevent nations from following in the footsteps of the United States of America. And the guy who basically ran Karl Marx, David Urquhart, was a direct deployment from Lord Palmerston.

So it's not surprising, ultimately, that we discover that Carl Marx attacked the American system. And that was sort of the end of our study of Karl Marx, which was maybe the first two years I was around the organization. The rest of it has been unearthing the power of the American system and recognizing that the way people have been sort of kept in a box is you're told your two choices are capitalism, which, you know, looks like Wall Street and, you know, the global financier elite, and kind of. communism. Well, what if somebody comes along and says, no, there's something different. There's something which actually worked. There's something that actually frightens the global financier elite, which is a system which is based on increasing the productive powers of your nation, as Alexander Hamilton said, through investment in science and technology, through a robust manufacturing base. You know, look at the United States. Look at Detroit in 1960, where we had the highest per capita

a standard of living in the United States because of blue-collar workers. That was the American system in action. And it not only has been sort of written out of history, but all of the elements of it were stripped away over the decades with free trade being sort of one of the final blows in the coffin. So what we've simply been saying for over 50 years, and now we're not alone, is the solutions to whatever you're facing economically at home and abroad is not this binary phony choice of big money runs everything

or the proletariat runs everything. Your actual solution is what our founding fathers gave us, what Abraham Lincoln perpetuated, and what I might add, the U.S. trade ambassador, Jameson Greer, gave a beautiful speech at Davos about how we have forgotten, in Alexander Hamilton and the American system. So I think where these attacks are coming from is the genies out of the bottle. We've brought the American system back to life. We're not alone. It's now a guiding principle of the Trump administration. And there are some very, very powerful

forces in the world who don't like that. And so they're pulling out all this silliness about Karl Marx. I mean, I'm trying to figure out how educating millions of MAGA people about the American system, Donald Trump's taking on the globalists, the historical implications of that, a more precise understanding of the imperial enemy. I'm trying to figure out how all of that helps some Marxists somewhere. So if somebody can give me the answer to that, please let me know. mention Alexander Hamilton. I'm going to be full stop. First time I've ever heard his name, Susan. I'm like, okay. And then did I hear you correctly that in Davos, his name was actually talked about this year? Yeah, by our trade ambassador, Jameson Greer gave an entire speech on the

forgotten history of Hamiltonian economics. Beautiful speech. Now, you can go back to our movement 20, 30, 40 years ago, this is what we were talking about. But we were talking about it in the wind. And we were also being attacked back then as Marxist, communist, fascist, anti-Semites, kind of like what they do to Donald Trump today. Because somebody doesn't want this discussion taking place. But, you know, the horse is out of the barn. It is the policy of the Trump administration, and they have a problem. Well, I'm glad people don't want us to have the discussion. So I want to, I don't, I actually want to stick on Alexander Hamilton just for a moment.

Can you walk me through the American system and what he was talking about for a layman? I think you've probably already done it, but I kind of just want to make sure I haven't missed anything. Sure. The American system and Alexander Hamilton. Well, let's start with what we fought the American Revolution against, the British Amperman. empire, yes, a monarchy. But there were two key institutions which really provide, are the pillars, were the pillars of empire and still are in its modern form. One was the Bank of England, a private central bank, which actually controls the economic affairs of the essential financial affairs

of a nation. Central banking had been created a couple of centuries earlier in Venice and ultimately migrated through the Netherlands into London. And so the Bank of England was one of the key pillars. It's basically where the elites could control the economies of Britain, colonies, and elsewhere. The other was the British East India Company, which was like their mercantile arm of the empire. That's what we fought the American Revolution against.

And we established, and the premise of these imperial institutions, starts with a very important premise, which is empires look at human beings as no better than beasts. And you know, you're a herd to be called, manipulated, do whatever you want with it. But the purpose of human beings in the empire is to serve the oligarchy, the few, the elites, and so on. Obviously, the American Revolution and our founding fathers had a very different idea, as does Christianity, that all men are in the image of God, and that you have to ask, actually create an economic structure which fosters that, which gives full reign to what makes

human beings human, which is our ability to create and discover and exert greater dominion over nature through science and technology. That's what the American Revolution was about. So Alexander Hamilton put that in the form of three very important publications. One was called the report on manufacturers, which perhaps was the most important because it stated the principle. The wealth of a nation isn't its gold or its raw materials or its land. The wealth of a nation is the productive powers of labor, by which he means man's ability to create, produce, and exert dominion over nature. And so in the report on manufacturing, he laid out various policies to support manufacturing.

One of the most important, of course, was tariffs, and that takes us right to today, that you actually want to protect your ability to produce what you need in your own country. Not everything, but as all of the Trump spokesmen are saying at this point, the majority of what you need as a sovereign nation, you better be able to produce here in the United States. And that's what tariffs are for. The other pillar was government support for infrastructure, that big projects like Lincoln's Transcontinental Railroad or the Erie Canal, there's no such thing as enough private capital to do something like that. So the government has to provide credit for the big projects. It's built by private industry, but the credit and the organization for those big projects comes from the government, like the space program, before it gets less.

and then you can have an Elon Musk, but you know, we didn't have an Elon Musk in the 1960s when John Kennedy said we were going to the moon. And then the final part, and this gets back to central banking, was a national bank, that rather than a private central bank run by the elites for their purposes, you set up an institution which is under the sovereign control of your country, and the purpose of our national bank was not to make money. It made money. They knew you have to make a profit to run an institution. But the purpose was to foster economic development in the United States, to make sure that credit was there for somebody who wanted to produce something.

And that's what you see with the Trump administration. in their battle with the Federal Reserve, because the Federal Reserve is a private central bank. It's not serving the interests of the country. It doesn't lend money to some guy who wants to open up a machine tool shop or somebody who wants to bring his company back to the United States and start producing here. They give their money to the speculators. So the purpose of a national bank is to make sure that there are credit flows that are available. I mean, if someone wants to speculate, they can speculate.

But you want to make sure that somebody who needs the credit to build is going to have access to something from one of these, from this institution. Those were the three pillars of Hamilton's policies. They were the basis of Abraham Lincoln's policies. He was assassinated. They were the basis of William McKinley's policies. He was assassinated. many of them were implicit in John Kennedy's policies. He was assassinated.

And it is the basis of everything Donald Trump is doing. And they almost assassinated him. And yet that's the first time I've ever heard this, you know? That seems odd to me. Well, I mean, it doesn't, it doesn't. Yeah. It shows how effective they've been. And look, this goes back 100 years.

Really, for most of the 20th century, Alexander Hamilton and the American system were written out. That's why we had to discover it. That's why we were flopping around looking at other things to try and figure out. How do you fix what we see going wrong? And when we discovered the American system, we said, holy cow. But it has been hidden. That's why Jamison Greer, the trade ambassador, just gave a speech saying, you know, the Hamiltonian economics that we've forgotten. And yet once again, I go, that's been removed from, I'm like, you'd think, this is just me,

thinking about this properly. You know, what did I see from the World Economic Forum? I watched Donald Trump's full speech, focus on Greenland, NATO, different things of that essence. Here in Canada, we watched, I assume a lot of us, watched, Carney's speech. And I didn't hear anything on Alexander Hamilton. Now I'm like, well, now I've got to go search that out because, I mean, obviously,

this is curious to me because, you know, this brings me forward to one of your videos that just came out, the one that's being attacked, actually, if I go back to the tweet, is you're saying in one sense, they're talking about American economics. They're talking about this Alexander Hamilton. They had a speech on it. It was excellent. And then, you know, I think a whole bunch of us were sitting here in this Lord Palmerston. Once again, on this side, Susan, I'd never heard this name before, right?

And then you're like, and Pierre Pollyev quotes him. I'm like, that can't be, I was telling him before he started. Like, that can't be true. Like, that's got to be AI. So then I go watch. It's pinned right to his bloody profile, folks. I go watch it, like, 12 minute video. I'm like, I didn't see, I didn't hear it.

I'm like, how the possible that my ears don't pick it up? And I'm like, okay, I've watched a couple of Susan's videos. I'm like, it has to be there. Otherwise, the first question I'm going to ask is it's not there. So I sit down. I've watched it once, folks. I missed it. And I watch it a second time.

In fairness, I like to listen to a lot of things on a little higher speed than most. So I slowed it right down to one. And I'm like sitting there. And I'm like, nope, you're not, you turn your phone over. You're going to watch this. And there it is. Three minute mark. All of a sudden, Lord Palmerston comes out.

I'm like, so you got on one end, Alexander Hamilton, I've never heard of before. And on the other hand, you got Lord Palmerston, both of these people I've never heard before, but within the same time frame, they're both being talked about. So walk me through Lord Palmerston then. Well, sure. Because look at the United States. And again, look at why empires are afraid of the American system. We're based on, I know it's trite, but rising everybody's boat through actually.

economic development, not through handouts and that kind of nonsense, but by, you know, expanding your knowledge of the universe through science and technology, putting it to work through better industry, better technology, higher standards of living. Now, if you're a country run on that basis, you're going to be strong, you're going to be stable, you're going to be prosperous, and other countries are going to look at you and they're going to say, I want to be like that. And that was beginning to happen even early in the 19th century. Even in the end of the 18th century, there was an aborted American Revolution in France, which then got turned into the Jacobin Terror and so on. But you're the British Empire, and you're sitting there saying, uh-oh, we weren't able to stop

these upstart Americans from starting this republic, but we have to stop it from spreading. And how are we going to do that? Well, they did a lot of things. They attacked us again with the War of 1812 and other things. But the hallmark of British and these imperial policies is foment radical or separatist or right-wing or left-wing movements in a country, destabilize it and put your own people in. And what Lord Palmerston was sort of like the father of of a whole thing called Young Europe, young America, young Italy, young this, young that. And these were movements that were basically fostered by the empire to destabilize any government

that might be looking at the American Republic as a model or might want to just work with the American Republic. And, you know, people today are familiar with color, revolutions, Lord Palmerston was simply the 19th century originator of the idea of color revolutions. And, you know, we, and the fact that, and I think, I mean, I'll go, go back to the fact that you hadn't heard of any of this. They really had in the 20th century a pretty good lockdown on the culture, the education system, the way most people thought in the States and in most of the Western world, which is why Hamilton was completely written out of everything.

You know, the British at the end of the 19th century, you know, sort of shifted gears at a certain point, really after World War I, when they actually did need the United States to bail them out of their little mess that they got themselves in. But they also saw that the United States was continuing to get strong. So again, you're the empire. What are you going to do? Well, I can't defeat the United States. Maybe I can subvert them and get them to be my dumb giant. And that's where you get the emergence of institutions like the Roundtable, the Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House, and of course those latter two are still very, very prominent today. They're attacking Donald Trump. They're defending globalization. You know, they're on the same bandwagon as all of the people.

attacking us. Oh, if you don't think you're ready to go to war with Russia, you must be a Russian puppet or something like that. So you still have this longstanding apparatus in the United States. But Trump is out organizing it. I mean, he is moving against it with his policies. And we're kind of like the magnifiers of everything he's doing. And I think we've sort of crossed a tripwire from the standpoint of the global elite that they're going to have to come out openly and attack us, which is fine with me because I think it means we're getting somewhere.

Okay. Pierre Pollyev saying that line, you know, like people, are we saying this to a friend of mine earlier before we started? People can watch who I bring on or what I say on stage and they can try and infer more than maybe what I'm, you know, like, one of the things I said on stage once

is I brought up an Ayn Rand quote because I'd read several of her books and would I remind people because then they draw into what Ayn Rand and everything she was a part of and on and on they'll go and they go, oh, you've got to be careful. And I'm like, oh, well, it's just like,

it was a really good book. Atlas Shrug was a really good book and I see the similarities of what's going on in society. And I don't have a team writing that speech for me. Tron sitting there probably the night before. What am I going to say? What do I want to try and convey and whatever else?

And so, you know, I guess that's the thought I'm putting out there. So when I watch Pierre Pollyab, though, I go, any of us sit around going, Pierre wrote that speech? No. I don't think any one of us is sitting there going, I'm sure he proof read it. But does he not have a team of, is it two, is it 20? And where are they getting their stuff from? And why did they pick Lord Palmerston?

Was he a big history buff and he read, you know, British history and that one stuck out? I find that very interesting. Your thoughts on Pierre Poliev and others starting to quote Lord Palmerston, I guess. I mean, here's what I will say, because I would not presume to be an expert or have an informed view on Pierre Poliyev himself in terms of his intentions, his policies. I probably will have to get up to speed a little bit more if I'm going to be talking about Canada. I mean, I certainly can talk about Mark Carney. I'm not in a position to talk about people who are more or less on the other side. But I think you're absolutely right in terms of how this got dropped into the speech.

It was also the opening of a speech given by Jacob Reesmog over in Britain. And both Poliev and Rees-Mogg are perceived to be, and I think, place themselves on the conservative side of the spectrum. They're not on the Carney side. You know, they're not on the Tony Blair side of the spectrum. Well, if you listen, sorry, Susan, if you listen to the full 12 minutes of what Poliyev says, that's why I missed it, because he's not talking about anything other than what Pierre and conservatives have been talking about the entire last, however many years it's been folks, but right there smack in the middle is that quote, which is interesting because, you know, like, there's just so many things you could put in there for a quote, why that one? It just seems interesting. You're pointing out the

interesting part of it, right? I would have never even paid attention to it. I'm going to be completely honest. Oh, okay, yeah, sure. Lord Palmerston. Well, like, let's get, you know, the conservatives, or sorry, like, we need more of that mindset, a conservative mindset in Canada, which a whole bunch of Albertans have moved on from full stop with all the things going on here with signing the petition and a referendum possibly coming here in 2026 and all down that thought process. Sorry, I go back to, I cut you off. No, but I think what you, you know, the fact that it's suddenly popping out. I mean, we did a whole, you know, we did a conference years ago in our older organization.

We called it Lord Palmerston Zoo, you know, where we went through all the different operations and so on. So we've been very much aware of Lord Palmerston for decades and decades. So it caught my eye when all of a sudden in the same week, I'm seeing his name pop up, you know, in these different contexts. And I think what it simply is a signal of is that the people who are trying to set the narrative, you know, who are behind the people who write the speeches for some of these people, recognize that their 20th century game of using the United States as their dumb giant is over with Donald Trump. And that they're going to have to go back to a reset of what they, the way they dealt with the United States in the 19th century, which is these internal destabilization operations, which of course you see going on in Minnesota right now. but you'll see it in many places. It's what we called regime change.

And Trump is shutting it down on an international standpoint. He's not changing regimes. He didn't change regimes in Venezuela. He got rid of Maduro and he's working with the chain of command in their government and so on. But with the British, what the empire, what the globalists are basically, I think, admitting, is all right, we got to go back to that earlier strategy where it's right out in the open. It's not like the United States is our stupid, dumb giant pushing forever wars and NATO and globalization and the rest of it. The United States is on the other side and we're going to have to just come

right out in the open with our imperial destabilization operations. I think that's what they're saying. Whatever the people who are giving these speeches think. Yeah, well, I'm like, he proof, I go to Pierre and I just go, he proofread it. Yeah, it sounds great. And then he read it. I could be wrong on that. Obviously, I've never been the leader of the official opposition, but I go the way I prepare a speech compared to the leader of the opposition or the,

you know, Mark Carney having his speech. I'm like, did he actually write that all out? I mean, they have professional speechwriters for a reason, folks. And I'm not privy to that. I am the speech writer. So if it sucks, it's all on my shoulders. Now, regime changes. I'm curious about this.

You said, and forgive me, I'm going to butcher this a little bit, but they didn't do a regime change in Venezuela. They just took Maduro out. But in all purposes, they took out, they flew in, they got the guy, and they are allowing the regime to stay intact, but they're controlling everything. Isn't that type of a regime change, or am I wrong in that thinking? Well, you know, President Trump was asked this by a reporter.

Why didn't you back Machado? Right? I mean, that, that, that, you know, if you had torn down the entire structure and put Maria Machado in there, that's, that's called regime change, right? So Trump was asked, President Trump was asked that on the White House law and by, I think it was on the White House lawn by a reporter. And he said, have you ever heard of something called Iraq? He said, there we took down every, we took out everybody.

We forced them to quit. We arrested them. What did you have? You had chaos and you ended up with ISIS. And that's how the empire works. You know, they'll, they'll use regime change to get rid of somebody who is bad or whom they've painted as bad. More often than not, it's the latter. And what comes in its place is some kind of operation which they control. Frankly, the best example is Iran. You had a nationalist government in Iran in the 1950s. you know, like a non-theocracy actual government, which was operating from the standpoint of what's best for the Iranian people. The British and the French notoriously with help from the Dulles brothers, couped that government that was Mossadec and put in the Shah. But then a couple of decades later, the Shah was no longer useful for them. And they unleashed the Comaniacs, got rid of the Shah, ended up with the Iran government, And again, they don't always control all the implications of it. But you get rid of one and you end up with something worse.

Or you get rid of one pawn and you end up with another pawn. And I think Donald Trump is not going to play that game. He wants to move pawns off of their chessboard. Now, if it means in Venezuela taking Maduro out and allowing his government to continue, that pawn is no longer on the globalist chess board. If you look at Syria where everybody kind of scratches their head and said, here's Trump playing nice with a guy who had been head of ISIS. Because what Trump is doing is even if they're not nice people, he's setting up transactional relations with them so they are off the imperial chess board. Syria is no longer part of the globalist chess board.

Turkey, same thing. Erdogan has got a very bad, bad. background and orientation as far as I'm concerned. But Trump is saying, and he's often been used by the globalists. Trump is establishing a different set of relations where he's off their chessboard. That's how he's operating at this point. He's taking the pawns off their chessboard. Doesn't mean he can put in some pristine, you know, wonderful person in their place.

And he pretty much says that. But he's operating from the standpoint of how can I dismantle the points of control that the globalists, in particular people who practice British geopolitics, have used in the entire post-war period to keep the world in perpetual conflict. Trump is trying to end that and create a world which, as he says, you have sovereign nations where they respect each other, they figure out their differences. Hopefully we don't have to go to war. And pretty much under Donald Trump, we haven't.

In the five years he was in office, no war started. Because he's trying to reset the entire way the world operates, as opposed to an imperial elite treating everybody as a pawn on their chessboard, and they change sides regularly. Again, as Trump has often said, a world of sovereign nations. And again, I think the people have been running the world for the last year and a half are number one not happy about Trump. They've made that pretty clear over the past 10 years. And I think they're not happy about the fact that we're making more clear to people just how big what it is Trump is actually doing.

So that especially here in the United States, the MAGA base doesn't get diverted. You know, with these intram MAGA wars. Are you with Candace Owens or are you with Tucker Carlson? Or do you like Erica Kirk or do you not like Erica Kirk? You know, there's been a huge effort to destabilize, divert, demoralize the MAGA movement from looking at what it is Donald Trump is actually doing. He's doing something that the British imperial elite, today we call them the globalists, have been afraid of for over 200 years.

He and his entire team went to Davos. I mean, look at Lutnik's speech. Right out of the gate, he says, I'm here to tell you globalization has failed. That's what you stand for. It's failed. We're not doing it any longer. You know, they went, you know, they went full bore at Davos out in the open. And we're out there with, you know, magnifying.

This is how big this is. This is actually a battle that's been going on for 200 years. And the people on the other side who have been fighting that battle for 200 years. years are not happy. You bring up Tucker, Candace, there's like thousands of others. There's like this crazy amount of people. But those two in particular are very big voices. And they point to lots of different things.

One of them being Israel, right, as being the controller of the United States. Your thoughts on that? People just need to look at the history. And again, take yourself back to, uh, how the Middle East was created at the beginning of the 20th century with Sykes-Picot and the Balford Declaration. This was all run by the British Empire. They were maneuvering with the French Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, but they wanted to carve up the Middle East in such a way that they would be able to maintain control, either by constantly pitting countries against each other or controlling who was running them and so on.

That's the origin of why the Middle East looks like what it looks like today. And what we've seen in the Middle East in the post-war period is you're supposed to choose between two sides. Israel, which is not Israel in and of itself. You have a revisionist and Zionist movement, which has nothing to do with Judaism. Then you have a lot of other people in Israel who are under a government that they're not very happy with. And then you have the Muslim Brotherhood, which was created directly by the British, way back at the beginning of the 20th century, which spawned most of the radical Islamist movements that we see today. So what have you seen in the Mideast? You've seen two entities created by the British, Zionists and the Muslim Brotherhood, keeping the region in complete conflict.

And, you know, the idea of that Israel is running this per se or the Zionists or the Jews is another convenient fiction pushed by the British. I always take pains to encourage people to read an excellently sourced book by Richard Poe entitled How the British Created Communism and Blamed It on the Jews. You can get it on Amazon. It's a short book. And sorry, what was the name of it again? how the British created communism and blamed it on the Jews. And I already knew a lot of this history, but when I read this book, I said no one has ever pulled this together better, more concisely, and with greater readability. And the last 20% of the book is footnotes. I mean, it's totally sourced and totally footnoted. And it's just an excellent, excellent example of, it goes back to

the 19th century, it goes back to Lord Palmerston and even before Lord Palmerston. But it goes back to how the empire has used these kinds of divide and conquer tactics, creating radical movements, creating schisms, pitting people against each other, destabilizing countries, putting their puppets in, deciding these puppets got, you know, worn out, destabilizing the country again, putting another puppet in. Look at the mid-east for the past 30 years. That's the history. And look at what Trump is doing. No, we're not doing that anymore. We're not choosing among binary choices. We're going to treat each nation and each group of people as having legitimate interests. And we're going to figure out how they can live peacefully together. Brian, let's come back to Canada. You mentioned that you couldn't talk to Pierre, you know, too in depth. But you said Kearney, you could. And you mentioned, you know, how Trump's dealing with all the different countries.

What do you see with Trump and Carney from your vantage point on what is happening? Well, I think Carney, you know, and I'm sure most of your viewers know, his background is the only man to ever be the head of two central banks, right? Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. He's obviously the globalist's poster boy at the moment. and he's now clearly being groomed as the anti-Trump among the globalist poster boys. Now, they're going to keep some people in their stable who still try and play nice with Trump, but Carney is now the stick figure they've created to, you know, tackle Trump directly. And, I mean, what is he doing?

He's making trade deals with China, which are going to wipe out what's left of your auto industry. You know, he's trying to make, it's the same thing as the Europeans just made a major trade deal with South American countries, which is going to wipe out the Europeans farmers. They're making, they're taking these globalist deals to the mat to try and create some new combination of countries that they can keep under the globalist thumb, but they're destroying their countries in the process. So how long is that going to last? Which is why you have obviously people in Alberta who don't want to have anything to do with this any longer. They're pushing failed policies, I think, to the breaking point. And as long as Trump is able to continue what he's doing,

and of course we have to get through the midterm elections here to make sure he has the backing to continue what he's doing. And we have to get through 2028 to make sure that an actual Trump air takes over. my preference is J.D. Vance. You know, but as long as this continues, then the things that Carney and the European Union and the British are doing to their own countries are just going to leave them in the dust as far as I can see. Or they can sabotage Trump and try and, you know, get a foot back in the game. Forever wars.

Ending the Forever War. one of the things that I was very hopeful of Donald Trump being elected was he would end the wars. We still have Russia, Ukraine, you had the bombings of Iran, you had all the Middle East skirmishes, you got Maduro and Venezuela, you got them signaling Greenland, all these different things. Does that signal forever war's ending? I don't see any of those as wars. You know, I mean, look, we all, if people haven't figured out how Trump negotiates by now, they're actually not paying attention. I would also agree with that. You know, he just kicks over everything.

You know, he goes the maximum. First of all, he wants to see how people are going to respond. You know, so that he can then judge, okay, how do I? But, you know, we did not send troops to Greenland. We went into Venezuela and we left. Iran is all, you know, we, you know, when, I mean, my hair was on fire when we, you know, when we bombed Iran, you know, back last year. I said, oh my gosh, is it starting? You know, are we going to have boots on the ground in Iran? Is this going to be back to regime change?

And it was one and done and it was over. Mission accomplished, back to normal with Iran. It's obviously getting very hairy in Iran at this point. But if, If we go by previous Trump methodology, you know, he's going to carry a big stick and hopefully we're going to get the kind of resolution where Iran has the opportunity to function more like a nation which benefits its population, which I don't think it really does at this point. How that's going to play out, you know, it's very complicated. I would be foolish to try and say. But if you look at everything up to now, he stopped wars.

He hasn't started wars and he would have stopped the Ukraine war if it hadn't been for the Europeans. Ukraine war would have ended in 2022 when Ukraine and Russia were ready to talk and Boris Johnson flew to Kiev and told Zelensky to keep fighting. And who's telling Zelensky to keep fighting now? It's the Europeans. So when Trump said, I thought it would be easier. He's probably thinking, well, if it's between Zelensky and Putin, I can work this out. But it's not between Zelensky and Putin.

between the Europeans and the British, NATO, the British, the Europeans, they're the ones who are keeping it going. But again, I haven't seen any new war started, and I haven't seen any regime changes. Your thoughts on the Board of Peace, because I just saw it, I think it was today, forgive me if I'm wrong on this, folks, but El Salvador is going to be on that, which I find, you know,

like the way you talk about Trump, I don't know Bukelly at all. But I've always said like, man, if there is a world politician that I'm like extremely intrigued by, it is Buckelly. I have watched a bunch of his interviews. I've watched how he's governed. I don't know, you know, I've never been to El Salvador, full stop. Just watching from afar. So I can't sit here and act like I know what life in El Salvador is like.

I don't. But what he says and how he acts, I'm like, I find that very interesting. And the fact El Salvador is like, yeah, we're on the board of peace is interesting to me. To me, it looks like a way of dismantling or going against the things like NATO and other things. And if my research is correct, there's a lot of things that you can't like about the giant global organizations that are existing right now. I think here in Canada, we got our full taste of that in COVID, you know, with the who. And you know, you look at what Donald Trump is doing there, you know, the United States no longer part of the who. They're forming the Board of Peace, which is, you know, an interesting endeavor.

And, you know, invites Canada, then rescinds the invite. Then El Salvador hops in. I'm like, oh, this is going to be interesting to watch and see what countries become a part of that. What do you see? No, I think that's exactly it. I mean, he's, the interesting thing about Donald Trump is he, you know, we have institutions, we have things, we have governments that we don't like. You know, we don't like the Federal Reserve. We don't like the United Nations. You know, and if you're living in a, you know, in a fantasy world, you snap their fingers and they go away.

Well, Donald Trump may not like those institutions, but he's not going to start to move against them until he actually has something to put. their place. And that's, I think, what he's doing with the, I think you're absolutely right, with the Board of Peace. He's just simply saying, we're not going to need that thing, because we have something here, which is fulfilling what the United Nations was originally intended by Franklin Roosevelt, not by the British, what the UN was originally intended to do, and frankly, never did. I'm going to set up an institution to do that. And, you know, if you want to keep using some real estate in New York and giving your money to this institution, which at best does nothing

and at worst plays regime change operations, you know, that's up to you. But I think that's exactly what he's doing. Okay. One, I don't know if it's final one for you, Susic, because I always enjoy having a new guest on who looks at the world just a smidge different than maybe what my echo chamber has become.

If, I don't know if that's the right way to put it, but regardless, it's just another voice in there. to add to it. This internal destabilization that you're seeing in the United States right now. I don't think there's anyone not paying attention going, holy crap, look at the things going on in Minnesota right now. The Don Lemon showing up in the church to me is super strange. If Don Lemon interviewed one of the people, you know, sitting like we are right now, That wouldn't be strange to me. Him being boots on the ground in Minnesota,

wildly going to a church was super strange. And then everything else going on in Minnesota is super strange. It's just strange to me. Internal destabilization. Walk me through this and, you know, the things going on right now. Well, let's look at Minnesota because that's actually been a flashpoint on more than one occasion. Of course, you can go back to George Floyd. But I'm going to take it back a little longer for all those people who claim that I'm pushing Marxist ideology.

In 1984, Lyndon LaRouche ran for president. We bought half-hour political commercials on national television, which made us kind of legendary back then. And one of them was entitled Walter Mondale Soviet Agent of Influence. and Mr. LaRouche went through the fact that Minnesota was a hub of the interface of the globalists and the Soviets, and that Mondale was essentially, you know, the representative of that. So, you know, if you look at Minnesota, you're looking at a locale where there have been nasty operations run for a very long time. The first Antifa chapter in the United States was founded in Minnesota, and it was modeled after a chapter created in Britain. And then, of course, you had the George Floyd, and now you have this.

So what you're seeing is a high concentration of this globalist on the ground operation. Obviously, there's other blue states where they think they can kick off something similar. Cities, not states. Seattle, maybe Portland, Los Angeles, but Minnesota really is the hotbed of it. And obviously what they're trying to do is create the kind of tensions where part of the population decides that everything Donald Trump or a Republican is doing is some kind of fascist atrocity and they have the right to do anything they want to to stop it. That's what they're trying to create.

The fact that the Trump administration is carrying out a very surgical investigation of the financing going into these operations and into the fraud and the two are going to be completely interlinked in Minnesota, I think means there's a chance that we could actually dry this up and show that this is not spontaneous white suburban housewives outraged over, you know, a Somali father being deported or something like that, but that this is a financed, highly deployed operation to try and create chaos in the United States. Before the 2020 election, there were essentially war games carried out by top think tanks. The British press was there observing it. It was called the Transition Integrity Process Project Tip.

And they war game. How do you create crisis? Let's say Trump wins in 2020, they man. to prevent that from officially happening. How are we gonna stop Trump if he wins? And they talked about creating riots and civil dislocation and getting the military to mutiny. And of course, we recently had Senator Mark Kelly,

Senator Elisa Slotkin from here in Michigan and others, literally telling the military to mutiny. So, I mean, these are very clear operations. I think the antidote to them is not just to expose where they're coming from, But again, give people the bigger picture. Because if people understand that what Trump is doing is history making, that this really is what our founding fathers

intended to do and that we were never really allowed to completely finish, not just for ourselves, but to enable the rest of the world to have this kind of freedom from central banking, from a global financier elite, from the world economic form, from colonialism, from the British Empire, whatever form it took in whatever period in history, Donald Trump is giving the world the opportunity

if he is able to complete his mission, you know, to do that same thing. And these are very powerful, desperate, evil forces. And the fact that they're now freaking out about what we're doing, I think is a good sign that they know they're getting out flanked. And if more people understand the true nature of the battle, it's not just between empire and sovereign republics. It's between two images of man.

They believe man is an animal. We believe man is in the image of the creator. And that's the fight between empire and republic. That's a big fight. And they don't want to give up. Appreciate you hopping on and doing this, Susan. And I don't know. I don't know where the future goes, but regardless, I appreciate you giving me some time today and hopping on.

And I'll be curious what people have to say because, you know, we've covered the gambit today. Like, I mean, we have been all over the place. And I appreciate you hopping on and doing this. Well, I appreciate your questions, your inquisitiveness and, you know, the ability to really talk about some big ideas.