The Duran Podcast - America First revival and NATO provocations w/ Robert Barnes (Live)

Episode Date: September 23, 2025

America First revival and NATO provocations w/ Robert Barnes (Live)

All right. We are live with Alexander Mercuris in London. And once again, on the Duran, we have the great Robert Barnes. Robert, how are you doing today? Good. In Vegas for a little while, then back to Tennessee pretty soon. But the was here, the Charlie Kirk's funeral was down the road in Arizona and was here to catch up with some folks and some court cases in California, which has, you know, no endless number of them. But otherwise, the, you know, the things keep moving and changing and very much we're, you know, we're living in a time in which decades happen in days rather than years. We got a lot to discuss. That's for sure, Robert. So before we get started, a quick shout out to everyone that's watching us on platforms. A quick shout out to our moderators. And Robert, where can people follow you? Sure. So for all the different political and legal and geopolitical analysis, we put all that up at Vibabaarnslaw.com, second only to the locals community of the Durant.com.

If you want sports and election predictions, I think I'm going to be under an obligation now to provide at least one free pick. Last time, you know, said that the Cypriot team would beat the Ukrainians and they did. Big underdog. There were people in the chat. Thanks for the free tip. So the free tip will be for tomorrow in the Europa League, Red Star Belgrade, to hold court at home against Celtic. In the beginning of the year, usually they're pretty good there at home. Of course, I got all kinds of distractions happening right now around Serbia,

like the rest of Europe. But yeah, for all the G, for that, you can get to sportspicks.orgals.com, put up a lot of, did well in the recent election in Bolivia. We'll see how the final turns out. There's some elections coming up in Netherlands, which will be interesting in some other places around the world. So that all the election prediction analysis is at sportspicks.locals.com. But otherwise everything is at Viva Barnes Law.

And then for those in the food freedom, medical freedom, the legal, what's happening on the front lines in the U.S., the Amos Miller, the Amish Farmer case, might be a big update on that in about a month ago with some big-name people might be at Amos's farm, in fact. So there might be some very promising news on that front. That's at 1776 Law Center.com. That's where you can get all that.

All right. And those links are in the description box right now, and I will have them as a pinned comment when the stream is over. Everyone watching from Serbia, from Belgrade, you heard it here first. Fantastic. So, Alexander, Robert, let's talk about all of the news in what was horrific, historic. the past couple of weeks and all of the questions,

the super chat questions, we will answer them through the stream and whatever we haven't answered, we will do a dedicated show me and Alexander to answer all those questions. So let's get started. Well, indeed, let's get started. And for me, it's particularly interesting to talk to Robert because as I was discussing with Robert,

just before we started this program, I have just been to the United States. I went to Chicago. I haven't been to the United States for more and 20 years. So it was actually very interesting and very wonderful to be back actually to see a city, Chicago, which I have never been to before, but which I greatly liked and was very, very impressed with. Of course, I only saw a very small part of Chicago. And one of my immediate senses, one of the things that really struck me about Chicago, about the parts of the United States that I went to,

is that yes, we hear an awful lot of problems in America and they are there, but this still remains a hugely powerful, very rich, very dynamic country. It's got tremendous optimism, tremendous energy. It's bound together by a patriotism that you'd ever find anywhere else that I know of, at least in Europe, certainly not the European Union part of Europe, if I can put it like that. And it's a country which, again, I can't understand why it cares so much about Europe still.

Alex and I have been talking about this because it seems to me that if it just cut the connection to these fading countries, this fading union in the European Union, which is what it is, and forged ahead on its own, it would move much faster and much further and the energy and dynamism that you still find in America, absolutely,

which is still there, absolutely is still there, would come into play even more strongly than it is at the moment. So anyway, there's an awful lot, and of course I heard an awful lot of people talk about many things. A lot of people were talking about Charlie Kirk. The reason I was in the US was to attend the intention. Media Awards in Chicago. And there were people from media, from the various independent media, from both the left, old left and the right,

libertarian right. And we're all talking about free speech. And it may be of interest to people to know. Everybody was completely horrified by the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Every day in the British media, I read really frankly upsetting things being written about him by people who should know better, things which often make me very upset and very, very angry.

But I heard nothing like that from any of the people that I was with in Chicago. And as I said, they were, if you like, the old left of the United States, the people who care about free speech, who worry about the First Amendment, We were called together by a criminal defence lawyer. He was very involved in these kind of things and cares about them a lot. And I know, Robert, that you knew Charlie Kirk. And I believe, I'm not sure whether you attended his funeral, but you can tell us a bit about that.

And I think this is the big event that has happened in the United States over the last few weeks. of that there is no doubt at all in my mind i would be interested in hearing your views yeah i mean it is both a terrifying and promising situation that either the death of charlie kirk if it recognizes his life and legacy you know uses his organizational name turning point into something very positive for the united states uh to get past this cultural civil war that could inflame into a kinetic civil war or we get something that looks like a kinetic civil war. And from an American perspective, even like globally, the only comparison I could make to this in recent times is the Ukrainian

murder and assassination of Professor Dugan's daughter in Russia. That, you know, here it's someone that wasn't political in the sense of didn't hold official office, didn't hold any institutional power. And yet the, you know, the Ukrainians kind of went crazy and celebrating her murder and the that in the u.s the only other comparable uh you know reference would be the assassinations of martin hooter king and malcolm x we've had assassinations of presidents and presidential candidates it would be presidential candidate but not someone like charlie kirk who was literally just an influencer hell held no public position of power no appointed position didn't seek out those positions i mean if he had wanted to go that route he could have in the first in the second

Trump administration or the first Trump administration. Though there was belief in Charlie's camp that, you know, the about, you know, 15, 20 years from now, that he would be a major political figure in actual elected office and even a potential presidential candidate. So he was someone greatly admired within the conservative mega populist part of the Republican party, someone greatly admired by people in the influencer world, even people from the left like Chink of the young Turks and others, that, you know, started out very hostile. Once he got to know Charlie, even though they had some hot debates, he was shocked and horrified and condemned it. Senator Bernie Sanders, to his credit,

quite quickly said we don't murder people for debate in America. That's not who and what we are. It's against our core values. But, I mean, the first shock was that the assassination itself, I was friends with Charlie Kirk. You know, it's always, it's horrifying, period. You know, have a friend die, but to see him murdered on national TV, it was just a different level of shock. Then the second level of shock was who did it in the sense that you could take any normie person in the middle, drop to the middle of, you know, middle America, you know, rural Utah and convert that person into a would be Manchurian candidate assassin within what appears to be six months to a year. And it was how did that happen? This is also something we're not

very accustomed to in the United States. And then third, I think probably was the most horrifying to people here, including amongst my friends on the old left, was the response of the new left to the neoliberal, which was to celebrate his murder or justify it. I mean, I even had extended family members coming in and telling me why he deserved to die. I mean, it just blew my mind at levels I couldn't conceive. And now what it did remind me of is in the United States, that, or like around the world, when you see politicized violence at this scale, then, I mean, he had, Charlie ended up with the biggest memorial in the history of the United States, personally attended memorial in the history of the country. Over 200,000 people there,

80,000 that got seats, 100,000 plus that were outside. Tens of millions watched it. Estimates are 30 to 50 million, at least in the United States, watched some part of it. I mean, so you know, outside of state funerals, you just don't see anything like this. the in terms of the public effect now for those that don't know you know charlie kirk started out as a traditional conservative a young traditional conservative 17 18 years old decide he wants to start something on campuses because in the united states high school and college campuses have become places of ideological indoctrination rather than places of pursuit of public education of dialogue of discourse all the things are supposed to happen don't tend to happen in the last 20 25 years it was

not surprising to some of us that the biggest people cheering his murder were teachers, school teachers in positions of social authority. And that they've turned these into indoctrination camps, incontrination disguised as acculturation. And so Charlie wanted to do something about it. So he got active as an 18-year-old, started turning point from his garage outside, by the way, where you just were Alexander, Chicago. That's where Charlie grew up.

And as he progressed, you saw the progression of young conservatives in America in the same way. He was representative of it, an exemplar of it. And so he became more and more populist. He became more and more anti-war. He strongly opposed the Ukrainian war consistently. He started to oppose what Israel was doing in Gaza. He started wondering, why are we all over the world? Why are we bankrolling Europe?

Why are we worrying about Taiwan rather than worrying about our own cities and our own people and our own places and our own continent, at least limited to that? He started going in that traditional populist direction. really brought starting point was a massive organization in college campuses, high school campuses. You know, people on the new left and the sort of doctrinaire left despised them because he was having extraordinary effect. And part of it was not only was at the best of debate and dialogue, Charlie was very generous. There's been all these quotes taken out of contacts that libel them all over the place.

They're all false. I knew him for many years. Charlie was one of those people I felt bad debating at times. I mean, if I said something, I got it wrong, he would very gently point. pointed out if we were debating offline. I feel so bad, I'm like, I don't go to the least of me. I'm sorry. I'll forget about it.

He was that kind of guy, very generous, the best of Christianity, the very best of evangelical Christianity. He was someone who, you know, someone could come up and say the nastiest things to him at these campuses. And he would say, oh, that's just a lost soul. Let's see if I can help for each of.

That was his mindset. The old school kind of Protestant belief that believes in the best of everybody. That was true. All he believed is the best of literally everybody. You can see him debate. Somebody would come up, a young African-American student. He was really nervous because it's a big public setting,

and he's got a strong D, I believe. And Charlie will sit there and take his time. Hey, it's okay. It's all right. Don't worry. It's natural to be nervous. And he would often take that person's ideas that might be communicated inarticably from the left perspective and would give it the best version,

strong man version of that, say, is this what you mean? Is this what you mean? You know, someone who's trans that might come up to him, say they were concerned about this or that. And you'd say, you know, I think your best life is that if, if you, if you get to love the body God gave you, that was his approach. It was a, it was not a mean approach. It was not a trolling approach.

It was none of those things that he has been caricatured as. And I think like people like George Gaman, my libertarian friend, one of the other things that shocked them was, he was like, look, in Columbia, where he lives in Medellin, he was like, you know, there was a politician killed, but likely connected to FARC, because the politician was anti-fark. He goes, but at least he goes, it was terrible that has politicized violence, but at least that was actually the case.

Whereas he said, I get me, and he turned out correct, it's likely the person who killed Charlie Kirk killed him for things he didn't believe, things he never said, things he wasn't about. And it's like, it's an insanity times insanity. And you guys have seen it and studied it and observed it for a long time.

We've had it in the United States that generally when this violence takes a whole new scale like it has now, it's because there's a political permit or what I call a political permission slip by people in positions of social authority that are winking at it saying hey this is okay I studied this extensively in the United States with a Ku Klux Klan when went through which went up and down up and down like a half a dozen times you know 1870s then 1890s the 1920s and 1950s and late 1960s and each time you study them the people that make up the clan are sociopaths and psychopaths and psychopaths that do the worst violence But what is is those violent fantasies stay stuck in their head and don't go anywhere unless there's a political permission slip in the local culture. When they get the nod from the local sheriff, from the local teacher, from the local city councilman, whoever it may be, or from the broader cultural indicators that they receive, then the violence would spike.

The moment the culture pushed back and said, no, no, bad idea. This was a bad idea. All of a sudden, the violence would drastically decline. So that's an issue. But America faces a, we haven't had to deal with. this since the 1960s. And I'm seeing friends and family members on the left, young left,

that remind me of the people who like joined Weather Underground. You know, you watched a lot of those documentaries of the various you know, you have John La Corre who does it in his own way, covering different aspects of what was happening, say, in Germany and some of these movements. So it is a serious concern,

a deep concern. I'm very glad that the people supported Charlie did not reciprocate with violence. I am deeply concerned. that there is part of the left that has truly so insane that now believes violence is necessary, that violence is self-defense to what they're doing based on words, based on pretending everyone is Hitler. You know, it's like everybody's Hitler, so that justifies anything.

And we saw it. So we face some frightening times. Either the country returns to the course of its founding belief and free speech and free thought, free debate, and we don't hate our neighbor. As Chase Hughes put out, I mean, Chase He was a guy that trains mindset. to the CIA. I mean, you know, he said everything about this feels like a PSYOP and of what's happening to America, where people, when you get to the point that you hate your neighbor, you hate a friend that you've had for 20 years, you hate a family member based on politics.

Unless you're in like war, there's a pretty darn good chance you're the victim of a PSA. Because you know more about that friend or family member than you could possibly know about policy debates someplace that are often abstract and esoteric to begin with. So it's a terrifying time. Charlie, was one of the most extraordinary human beings I ever had the chance to know. It's a massive loss to the populist movement, to the anti-war movement on the right to not have Charlie there because he was a critical conduit and to that, getting that message to decision makers and influential people. But if we represent and reflect the best of Charlie, Charlie was also on the Ukrainian hit list,

probably won't surprise people, unfortunately, why we're spending a single penny nickel, dime or dollar in any way, shape, or form going to that country after they put him on a hit list and he was murdered and many of their people celebrated it is beyond me. But it's both a terrifying time to be alive and a hopeful time just because the spirit of Charlie Kirk seemed to dominate even after his merch. That people responded with prayer, people responded with revival services, people responded by going to church, people responded by wanting to read the Bible more, people responded the way, like what you're seeing in Russia over the last five, 10 years of this recandescence of the

Orthodox Church of this old traditional Russian ways of life. You're seeing that that was how in part Charlie Kirk was inspiring in the United States. So a terrifying time. Hopefully that we learn the right lessons and put in the right policies and don't overstep and don't overreach. But at the same time, deal with what is a very serious and dangerous and frightening problem that now you can be an influencer and be a target, not because of what you believe, but because of what some lunatic mistakenly believes you believe. Yeah, there's a few things I wanted to say about Charlie, which, I mean, I've been watching and listening to some of his debates recently. And of course, in England, we have a very

highly developed debate culture. And the way Charlie conducted debates was profoundly different from the way we do them in England. In England, debate has become a curse, in my opinion, because it is all about point scoring. Charlie did not score points. That was not what he was about at all. Now, long ago, as I said many times on these programs, I studied the US history. And one of the events in US history

that, of course, I studied in very great depth were the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which took place just before Abraham Lincoln basically launched himself into the direction of the presidency. And that is exactly the kind of debate that Charlie did. It was very American.

It was also something that reminded me, again, I mentioned in a program that we did on the Duran, how the shock of Charlie Kirk's death reminded me of the first political event I had ever remember, I remember from my early, childhood, which is Robert Kennedy's assassination. What people don't know is that Robert Kennedy was also, Robert Kennedy's senior was also a great debater. And he also debated people in the same kind of way. There was no point scoring. And it is a terrible thing when people strike at something

which is so foundational to the way in which democracy in America has been constructive and built up basically since its founding. The ability of people, Americans, to talk to each other about these problems and to do so in a civil and polite way without constantly trying to maneuver each of each into humiliating and embarrassing situations as we do in Britain. And to do that, to assassinate someone in that kind of way is profoundly shocking. And that was what happened in the 60s with the assassination of Robert Kennedy and, of course, of all the others. And that was a very difficult time in the United States in the 1960s. But it was a moment also of consolidation.

I remember seeing this at the time when Robert Kennedy's body, was taken on a train to his burial, the people would line up on the railway tracks, and they were carrying American flags. And I saw something similar in Charlie Kirk's funeral. So I hope this will be a consolidating moment in the same way. I don't think this is understood in Europe. It is certainly not understood in Britain.

some of the media commentary that I have been reading in Britain about this event has appalled me. I mean, it's profoundly shocked me, just as what you say, Robert, about the attitudes of some people on what you call the young left has shocked you. Some of the commentaries I've read in the British media about this, including the Financial Times, in an article today, for example, and in an editorial published a few days ago, I can't begin to say how troubled they were. I hope and I would want to believe

that America will take the right lessons and will rise from this and that this will be a consolidating experience just as the assassination of Robert Kennedy was back in the 60s. So this is what I wanted to say. I want their things anyway. Absolutely. And I appreciate your,

It's been good to see the community of people that, you know, independent, old left, the wide range of groups on the right have a humane response that our humanity should trump all of this, that you gentlemen have both represented and others. And hopefully we can get past. I think the one good thing about all this is that a lot of your ordinary people have responded as you have. And those people might not have been ideologically aligned with Charlie. We're utterly shocked that this mindset even exists. And we're even more shocked when this mindset existed.

It's one thing if you have a bunch of people on TikTok doing it or a non's on the internet doing it. This was coming from doctors, lawyers, judge, law clerks, judicial clerks, professors, not just students, but they're teachers, elementary school teachers. In fact, the number one group that celebrated Charlie Kirk's death in America were elementary school teachers. That is deeply disturbing. And so it shows our whole educational structure is a joke. And we have to re-examine it writ large. I've always said that it's always been indoctrination disguised as acculturation, American education system,

going all the way back to Yung Dewey and all the rest. You dig into it. And it was all about creating nice, loyal factory workers. Right. Like, why do we obsess in our high schools in America about having everybody be on a sketch, everything's scheduled driven. Now, this is eight to eight 55. This is nine to nine 55. I was like, you know, it's not like work is that way. It's not like we subdivided, okay, I'm going to work on this for 45 and then this for, you know, the, it doesn't really make sense. It definitely doesn't develop the mind anything uniquely. Well, it's because it was designed to be the factories. They want people conditioned to, okay, wake up, go here, go here, go here, go here, go wherever people tell me to go, so and so forth.

So that we've just, I think Americans are waking up, particularly more on the right, but I mean, who knew some degree of this was taking place. But when you got school teachers convincing a 10-year-old that they're a girl, not a boy, and that they could maybe help them get special procedures without their parents knowing wink, wink, you've got a very disturbed mindset taking place, a very totalitarian. It's ironic. They cues everybody else being fascists. They basically are fascists in the way they, if you define fascism as this total control. control, this totalitarianist. They don't accept any part of civil society or the polity being outside of their control, hence Gamergate, hence the comic, the debates, the film debates, all of that because

it's everywhere in culture. And it's somewhat, I mean, Jimmy Kimmel goes from being the Man Show comedian, becomes a nightly propagandist on national TV to such a degree he was willing to defame Charlie and everybody that supported Charlie and lie about who the shooter was. And that's happened to draw a lot of the academic literature. because I've represented victims of domestic violence for a quarter century. And in that, you learn what are red flags and what aren't. And there's something in the trans subculture,

what happens in someone's mind when they don't know they're a man or a woman, the violence rate, when I was having to be in that legal practice, I'd have to tell people that's a big red flag, that your risk of violence, there's about an 80% chance that trans people end up either victimized or victimizer in their intimate relationships. But a lot of the data has been all doctored over the last 10 years because they decided this was something great. I mean, it's like I was intrigued by Putin's response to this because it's like he looks at it as just weird. It's like you guys can go do whatever you're going to do with your special values.

We're going to stay Russian here and Russia. And what he means by that is a traditional religious orthodox based way of life that respects the family as the foundation, the same with Victor Orban and Hungary, so on and so forth. And now we're into this situation where the way. Western culture, and I think you're right, the U.S. didn't export this to Europe. Europe exported it to the U.S. Another reason to disconnect from the decline, decaying societies and economies and policies of Europe, no better represented than in their incestuous globalist leadership cast that keeps rotating around. You know, all of a sudden, there are EU here, the NATO here, then Prime Minister here,

then back over to U.N. here. I mean, how do we have that idiot here in New York? What's her name? The lunatic from Germany, Bobback. It's like, oh my goodness. These are people we should have, want nothing to do with. And we're seeing the societal impact and the societal impact. And it's also combined with like, so my friend Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily,

is going to do a big broad survey to try to figure out what's the scale of this problem, what's the scope of this problem, what's the scope of this problem? What's the trigger? But some of what's becoming apparent is it's big tech has, we basically in the West took our children and said, let's subject them to an extraordinary experiment. And that experiment was big tech. And let's see what happens if they filter the world through the Instagram filters. And what have we seen?

We've seen it five, you know, there's the creepy thin line, other documentaries where the engineers have come out. And they've designed the, it's like a sciop times ten. They've designed this to infiltrate the culture, manipulate the culture. And they knew to get people's eyeballs, making them feel bad about themselves, was somehow critical to this. And so we've created a culture where you have a bunch of young men who hate themselves, in part that's because they're being taught by their schoolteacher, that being male is bad,

that their gender, that they're born and is toxic, that their skin color is a magical privilege that means they're responsible for all the moral horrors of the last three centuries. That the comics they like are prejudiced and bigoted. That the political affiliations and associations they have make them like the 1930s leader of Germany.

Chancellor of Germany. I mean, it's just, so I get, and so they hate themselves so much, it leads to all kinds of horrible things, socially, economically, politically, culturally, like this guy who was radicalized, you know, Normie, Mormon, middle class family in Utah. The, you know, father was a big Trump guy. But somewhere along, but then he goes off to a college and gets radicalized in like six months. And all of a sudden, comes back and nobody recognizes him anymore. All of a sudden, he hates his own family.

All of a sudden, he thinks he's trans or he wants to be involved with someone that's trans. you know, radical shift from what's the norm. I mean, in America, if you give an idea of how this experiment is working, we have a record number of people who don't know what gender they are, and we have a record number of people who don't know what their sexuality is. And this has not normally been the sign of a rising society, that when you start seeing unusual sexual behaviors and other kinds of behaviors that are really off the charts,

unusual, historically, culturally, then usually it's a sign of a declining empire, declining civil, a declining society. And so, and we see all these examples of it. So Charlie's kind of representative of that. Then we've got whatever big tech is done. We've got young girls in this country,

my daughter's generation, have a five-fold increase in anxiety, a five-fold increase or up to tenfold increase of mental illness diagnosis, a five-fold increase in self-harm. And the only thing that they've found that so far is even correlative to this explosion of self-harm and self-hate, it turns out is access to big tech, that the more these kids grew up in big tech,

they learn to hate themselves, and then they start projecting that hatred, and there's going to be some group that do it. And if you're MK. Ultra, is there a better project than using online technology, radicalization techniques with this vulnerable, susceptible population of people who've been taught to hate themselves already? And then you get into trans.

If somebody doesn't know what gender they are, they might be unusually susceptible or going through that issue, however you interpret that out there, in terms of the trans. They are a very vulnerable mind to all kinds of impressions, including what, you know, I was told me,

it was like MK Ultra's dream project would be to have access to the kind of kids they now have access to. Our big tech has direct access to, writ large. So I think we have these deeper, we have an educational system, a rot that is deeply concerning.

We've got a cultural revolution that's deeply anti-American that's taken over institutions of influence in the country. We've got a, willingness and readiness and eagerness of politicized violence with a political permission slip from some of the most important significant figures in society. We've got a big tech that is absolutely out of control that is causing massive, clear,

undisputable harm to the physical and mental health of our young people. And unless we get our arms wrapped around all of it without going down the route of trying to do mass censorship, without, you know, Pam Bondi talking about hate speech, which as somehow an exception to free speech. There's no such thing. There's illicit incitement of illicit activity. That's activity. That's not speech, words. Well, at the same time, we have real problems. I mean, we have people on NBA, MSNBC came out and suggested the time he was shot, though it was probably one of his supporters just shooting a gun off. I mean, it was the most ridiculous preposterous. Shut him. And yet that's been the mindset here. So we got,

it reveals deep fractures within our society and deep problems, but also the response. shows deep potential to solve those problems in the best way. I agree about the second. Absolutely. Now, I would say something that I absolutely agree with your identification of many of the problems that are there. And you're absolutely correct that many of these things that you talked about are manifestations and of a society in decline. But it is also true that certainly in the United States, the antibodies, if you like,

this kind of thing, are there. Also, you have that. I go back to the Constitution, to the Bill of Rights, to the First Amendment, to the decisions and the words of Americans of the past. Whilst I was at that conference in Chicago, for example, we had a lot being said about Justice Brandeis, from I'm sure you know, and what he had to say about free speech and how you can use free speech. And free speech is the instrument to bring light.

to clear away these strange ideas. And that absolutely is the American way. And by the way, that is why I think Charlie Kirk ultimately was killed. I mean, I'm not making any claims about, you know, who might have been involved, because that I don't know about. But ultimately it was because he was somebody who debated, argued and spoke and listened. This is where I say the debate, the debating style is different. from the British one because in Britain we never listen.

This is why he was killed. But it's still there. It's very, very much part of the civil culture of the United States. And I'm going to say something. Having been in the United States, having met lots of people there, having, as I do, spoken to people for many demographics, the thing that struck me, struck me is that

when you are outside the United States, It seems as if every other person thinks these strange things that you read about all the time. And in fact, my own sense is that this is just a small little film of people on the surface of the ocean of American life. I mean, most Americans are not like that at all. And yes, I accept. They go through universities and schools and they come out. the other side and they adopt these ideas and one or two do these terrible things. But ultimately, I suspect most of them anyway, when they go through the school of life, they will adjust back

and they will be brought back into their society and they will live normal lives and return to happy lives again, very different from the kind of things that they're being instructed to do. Anyway, that was very, very much my own sense about the situation in America. But that doesn't, of course, deny that there are many, many problems in America at the moment, both domestic and foreign. And a point which we've all made many times in many programs is that there is a huge interaction between the two. The United States, one of the reasons things have been going so wrong in the United States, is because it's become so involved in so many international problems,

in so many different places. And it has to promote certain ideas. And it often, this is where I think this is all come from, by the way. It promoted many of these ideas in other countries in order to gain influence there. And they've been imported back into the United States. and a lot of them have been promoted by NGOs and political groups in Europe, which have been allied to American intelligence and agencies and have influenced the NGOs in that kind of way.

So I think that there is a sort of feedback loop that arises from US foreign policy. But US foreign policy is changing. The Europeans are very worried. They're very anxious that the Americans are leaving. there have been a whole series of agonising articles in the media in London. So, you know, we are, we flatter Trump, we agree with Trump, we pretend to bribe Trump, we tell him all of the things that we think he wants to hear. And suddenly we are beginning to realize it's not working.

He just goes ahead and does all of that, listens to all of that, and tells us what wonderful people we are and then goes off and does his own thing. So are we in that period of change? Because if America can sort out its foreign policy, I think a lot of the other problems that we've talked about many times, even the debt problems, for example, will start to sort themselves out. So what is your view about this, Robert? We've had something that's caused great alarm in Europe, the new national security reviews that have been conducted inside the Pentagon, are we really going to start to see a shift in U.S. foreign policy? One would hope so. I mean, one of the things that Charlie Kirk was influential in and instrumental in

was extending the view of young MAGA, young conservatives, young populace, to the administration, including making personnel choices. He had a major role in J.D. Van, becoming vice president. He had a major role in a range of people getting staffed within the White House and the Pentagon. He would often talk to many of us and get our

feedback on certain people about, hey, what about this person in that position, this person? And those people seem to be on the ascendance, which is good. To me, Charlie Kirk's murder was one of the last, it should have been the last straw of a thousand straws to communicate how

Trump's original inclination to escape Europe's problems, not entangle us with Europe's problems, needs to happen on an accelerated timetable. But we wait to see what Trump will do. Now, you guys are, it's extraordinary to me is how many people can't recognize the kind of things you guys are able to recognize right out of the gate, which was that Trump saying, I'm happy to impose massive, massive sanctions right as soon as you guys do it. I mean, as you guys pointed out, they can't do it. It's obviously a bluff.

Now, it was a gamble because the gamble is what happens if they actually are so crazy. Yes, yes. We Europe will commit economic suicide in the name of the Ukrainian conflict and taking down Putin. But you guys pointed out from that that was not likely to happen, though. It was a risk. But, you know, it's annoying to me that we have to go through all these shenanigans to get out of a conflict. We should have never been in the first place as the president himself is acknowledged. But it shows you the power.

the corrupt deep state in the United States. I see it is, if you curious what you guys think, I see it is like a lot, people get caught up in American empire, Russian empire, Chinese empire, whatever. To me, it's the globalist versus nations.

That the EU, I don't think there's a person in EU leadership that gives one rat's rear end about any ordinary person in all of Europe. I don't think Starmer cares about the UK, 80% of Brits agree that he doesn't care. the Macron is setting records for I mean I guess he's going to hang around long enough to set the ultimate record that nobody could top I mean he's exceeded george w Bush's low approval with numbers in 2008 and that was after disastrous war and a global financial crisis and a major scandal I mean Macron's setting record pays for it merch is an utter disaster in germany you see the surge of the afd and the others uh in fact you look at what even europe wants is they want more populous style politics whether it's

it's reform and Farage in the UK, whether it's Le Pen in France, whether it's AFD in Germany, whether it's Orban's success in Hungary, even Poland, which early on was eager to recreate the old Polish Lithuanian-Russian Empire split as it related to Ukraine. Even Poland's trying to get out of this nonsense. And even, and my God, the script writers are getting worse and worse. If you're going to come up with some false flag, at least have it be believable by at least the local public, right? I mean, even when the polls are making fun of, of your false flag, then you really run a poor false flag. They just can't do it to save their lives in between picking up people and pretending

that they were the ones that Ukraine did, the Nord Stream bombing and all arrests. But so everything about that is a disaster. The we should get out. We should have got out a long time ago. Now, I think as we, but as you guys pointed out, that is exactly what Trump is trying to do, but trying to do it. He wants to get out without any finger pointing. It's like, okay, God bless.

everybody would love to be able to split the baby and have the baby. Everybody would love to eat their cake and still have it. Trump, God bless him, that part of his salesman nature, he always wanted, give me the perfect solution. It's like, well, you know, it's more tradeoffs than perfect solutions. But at least he's still on the right intended path. Because you guys pointed out there, as soon as he put out there, I will immediately do these massive tariffs as soon as,

and as you pointed out, Alexander, that got missed in a lot of U.S. commentary. he said not EU he said NATO no I do I actually am favor of Trump constantly creating this image that NATO is not us the I mean NATO's paying for it as Alex points out well that's usually us you know maybe through the back door around the front door but I like the political discourse he's going because I want Americans to see NATO as Europe not us not us not us that helps set the groundwork for us to get out and let Europe handle Europe's problems. We don't need to be in conflicts around the world for a country as reprobate and a conflict as useless as Ukraine. But that is clear. You're absolutely right.

That's what Trump was doing. He wants out. He doesn't want to accelerate. But he wants cover so that he doesn't look like he backed off or that he gave in to Russia or Putin, any of that. but you can tell as you guys one what we said about the Alaska summit did mostly come to fruition that you know all the people worry about a trap

who was going to get killed who's going to get arrested none of that happened and instead it put in motion other things and then there you have Tulsi Gabbard hiding from even the five eyes what exactly the U.S. strategy is on Ukraine. So the I mean it's amazing these little stories get buried

and then you'll see something I mean you guys will cover it but you won't see it much in the West where you'll see the mainstream media where he'll see, you know, all of a sudden certain weapons orders got halted and got reversed again or something else. But the, well, I was really thrilled to see. I mean, so Charlie Kirk was, for example, very influential in bringing in Robert Kennedy and Mahab. That was 1776 Law Center with Richard Barris. We did the polls. We got it to Charlie, Charlie got it to Trump's people. That's what brought the coalition together. But the other thing,

these other anti-war elements, the JD Vance element, Pete Higsith, Elvridge Kobe, I was very happy to see. not only the prior report where they came out and said, look, we got to focus on America from a weapons production perspective. It can't be sending them all around the world, least of all to Ukraine. But now, as you point out, Alexander, they are now saying, and I was really thrilled with it, because I was a little nervous that there are aspects of the Trump administration that were China hawks. And, you know, I want a different trade relationship with China to protect American industry. That's been Trump's historic position, not military kinetic conflict with China, which I have no interest in whatsoever. What was good is now that's on the record because what Elders Colby is putting forward

in the Defense Department report is it's time to be what you guys talked about at the beginning of the year. It's time to focus on our own regions of influence and quit messing around everywhere else and everybody else's region. Quit putting our fingers in everybody else's pot. Let's just worry about our own pot. We've got enough problems with our own pot. And the now whether or not what's exactly going on in Venezuela is a little bit tricky to figure out. It does look like Trump is actually really focused on the drug aspect,

which we'll figure out how that will work is policy. But I think the good news is that the Trump is, he used the Alaska summit to say, I'm no longer going to pursue the ceasefire route and to try to back down and back out of the sanctions route, which would be hurtful mostly to us, not to Russia. And it looks like he's maneuvered in a position to do that. I mean, even Europe is postponing its indefinitely, it's sanctions package because Trump called him on a bluff. And it looks like Trump got it. I mean, it's hard to respect almost anybody in Europe right now. Like, you know what I mean?

You look at these leaders. You're like, these are pitiful people. I mean, just as a tactical perspective, it's like, would you want any of these people negotiating for you? I mean, I can't imagine. So the, but like including Erdogan, including NATO meant including Erdogan, including, which meant there was absolutely zero chance Turkey. going to go along. And I don't think he really wanted to hurt Orban, who's his only friend in Europe. He just figured, hey, this would, I wouldn't surprise me if Orban told him, nobody in Europe will go

along with it, including us. And that was, oh, okay, this will be my exit ramp. Hey, I wish I would have loved to impose the sanctions to save Ukraine, but by golly, those Europeans wouldn't go along. So that appears to be his exit path on Ukraine. I would have liked it earlier. I would have liked it more determinative. I would like it's not messing, playing footsie with these people to begin with on a continuous basis. But it does look like that's the path he's on. Whether he can rein in BB Netanyahu in Gaza is probably going to be his next hot spot, dealing with Iran, dealing with Gaza, dealing with Syria, as pointed out in one of the super chats.

You know, we've got Mr. 11 years on a terror list, Al Nusra, visiting. And who came up with the idea? Let's take photos in front of where the World Trade Center building is to be. I mean, just say, FYI, just if you're on a long time, terrorist in the United States. Maybe don't take the photo shot there, you know, maybe do it somewhere else, just to say it. I'm stealing that from Alexander. I keep saying, just saying now all the time. I love it. But so I think that's good news. And hopefully we keep on that path. I'm praying we keep on that path. It was good to see him, the other sign of this,

as you guys were tracking, when all of a sudden, Modi did return the phone call, did answer the phone call. And all of a sudden, they're both putting out, hey, we're going to get a good trade deal with India. It's like, well, then obviously we're not on any kind of sanctions track, are we? Because that wouldn't make any sense. So I think, though it's taking Trump forever, I think we have seen confirmed in the public what both of you had identified from the get-go, which was Kellogg was a bad-faith actor. It was someone that asked the super chat question about that. He was always a bad-faith actor. He was part of the America First Policy Institute, which had a lot of problems associated with it.

Some of us kept warning about it. But now we know that he was, Keload was just big, whatever garbage Ukraine would give him, he would turn around and give to Trump. And that's where all the ridiculousness about casualty information, the ridiculous, it's extraordinary to me that he weaseled his way

into that position of being the information conduit on Ukraine. But Trump can see what's happening and that it's not, everything Kallogg has said didn't come to fruition. Everything Kellogg predicted didn't come about. And I think he's run out of, and you know, Kellogg has not been in a lot of these meetings. So I don't even think he was invited to Alaska.

So I think there's a recognition that he needs to return to the Charlie Kirk path of, I mean, Charlie was great at advancing the no war position more and more on the right. There's all these people, I see some of the super chat questions. There's a lot of caricatures about Charlie out there. Like, I mean, like with Jimmy Kimmel as to that super chat question, people weren't mad about Kimmel saying something vague. It was Kimmel lied and said Maga murdered Charlie Kirk. That was a lie. in a malicious and malignant one. Also, I got no patience for Jimmy Kimmel.

I helped Roseanne Barr back in the day and other people. Jimmy Kimmel led the effort to get her fired at ABC and then cheer led it. So the idea that it's, you know, the, well, we'll see. Now, ABC rehired him, but none of the associates here in the U.S., for the most part, most of them are not putting them back on because they realize that they misread the temperature in the room. So hopefully we're getting out. of Ukraine, hopefully, and because we've got so many other problems.

But as you pointed out, that was a big political, I mean, Politico covered it. Not a lot of other people, Axios has clearly got a lot of access because they get all kinds of insights these days. And those are the former political guys. Though it's always, you know, two sources, three sources, four sources. You know, I think Kellogg just multiplies himself and often he's the four sources. The Kellogg in the morning, Kellogg in the afternoon, Kellogg in the evening, Kelling at midnight. But we're now finally starting.

talking about not even looking at China as a kinetic source of kinetic conflict or risk. They're saying, look, we've got to focus and we've got to shift away from China, away from Russia, away from Europe, away from all of these conflicts, focus on our own regional influence, focus on our own domestic security, improve our own domestic economy, deal with our own domestic debt and related issues. And as a whole, it's to the degree the currency in the euro dollar system is all part of that. That is more manageable if we're if we're not. involved in stupid wars around the world. So it does look like Trump is starting to move in that path.

It took a little longer than a lot of us would like. And I think it's because Trump partially was bringing on Kellogg and the rest. But I think the biggest thing is Trump wants to be sold an ad about how he can achieve an outcome without any downside, without any negative. That's just not the way politics and geopolitics tends to work. But I do think you all also seeing the positive statements by key people connected to the Putin regime, the economics representative in particular, their sovereign fund investment guy in particular, who's been very proactive at trying to sort of unite the sort of populist side of MAGA with the Russian perspective. You see there's in-depth discussions on restarting the START treaty. There's in-depth discussion, as we talked about, but there's a lot of other issues.

I mean, there's global security. there's European security architecture. I mean, what Vance would like, and what Trump's position was in 2015 was what you guys talked about. It was, why don't we just get out of NATO and just be available when we need to be available when our interest is at stake, but not otherwise?

The amazing thing that all, they keep thinking they can just trick Trump into anything. And Trump keeps, you know, frankly, playing Europe like a fiddle for the most part. I mean, the last two months or so, they keep thinking they got something. I'm like, that's never going to happen. Oh, he's going to commit.

U.S. trips to Ukraine. No, it's not going to happen. Oh, he's going to do a real security guarantee. No, that's not going to happen. He's going to do backdoor NATO. No, that's not going to happen. And as you guys pointed out, Russia has a practical veto because they have a battlefield veto over whatever happened. The, that some of the Europeans discussing amongst themselves, something that can never happen as a solution. It's just, well, I mean, I think increasingly Alex is right. This is all about getting a paycheck for some bureaucrat in Brussels. Like, come up with, you know, sanctions plan, 2227. so that George down here can make sure he hits his pension in two years, whatever it is.

But so it looks good. It looks promising. It looks like Trump pursuing that path. And not escalating a kinetic conflict with China, which is what the Pentagon report is. Eldridge Colby wrote that. People may recognize the name. Eldridge Colby's grandfather was Bill Colby. He was the guy who was at the CIA for a relatively brief period of time, who out of the M.K.

Ultra files. And then ended up, you know, I think Robert Maxwell style falling off a boat or dying on unusual circumstances. So that's a little background on Colby's history. Kobe is a true more nationalist populist perspective. And you're seeing that more identified now, even within the press that has recognized this. But aligned with Vance, Hexeth is mostly aligned that way. It's just Hegsteth is more instinctual than intellectualized. Colby is the intellectual and Vance of the intellectualized version of that populist

geopolitical realism. They're trying to push through into the Trump administration. There reflects Trump's instincts. And the only restraint is Trump not wanting to offend the Lindsey Graham's of the world, not wanting to upset anybody. You want everybody to be happy at the end of the day. And that's not something that's practical. But at least we're in a position where we're de-escalating. We have paths in place to withdraw, not get further involved. And the reality is, and Trump definitely doesn't want to be there, as you pointed out, when it falls. And the only question is when, not if. I mean, the only question is does it happen in October, December, February, or summer? But probably we're within, I mean, you guys follow more of the battlefield information than I do.

But from what I have seen, it seems to me that we're on a clock, probably less than a year, more likely than not, that Russia just wins this on the battlefield. And Trump knows that at this point, I believe. But also, they're continually to do economic negotiations on Arctic development, on energy development. And again, for economic purposes, Trump's got to keep. the oil prices down, as you pointed out the other day, Alexander. You take Russian fuel off the market. That's not going to lead to price decline. Supply goes down, demand stable, price go up. That's how that works. So it's looking good, even if Trump took it his own unique Trump path. And with Trump, you never know for sure until we're finally out of there. Absolutely. Lots of things on fact that you've just been saying, Rob. Let me first of all begin with stories that get

buried. Now, I'm not absolutely certain that this is correct, but somebody who was at that big protest in London that took place last, not last weekend, but the weekend before, tells me that one of the people who participated was Navrotsky, who is the president of Poland, the newly elected president of Poland. Now, if that is so, I can say definitely, and, you know, he was there. This person who told me this was there. So I'm assuming that this is true, but this is absolutely not something that the British media reported at all, but it doesn't actually surprise me. Because if you follow what Navrotsky has been saying and you track his politics, going back to what you were saying about people across Europe, changing their stances, different politicians emerging,

populist movements growing. He is absolutely somebody who wants to extricate Poland from the Ukraine mess, who wants to pursue entirely different approach to the way Poland conducts his affairs, who's much more skeptical about the EU, even than the Kaczynski brothers were. So we're talking about somebody who's quite different than the political leaders that we saw before. That's one thing I wanted to say. The second is this, and it's perhaps in some ways more interesting, and it takes us back to Charlie Kirk. All of those people who are coming up with all those extraordinary things

that you were talking about earlier, there's very weird and frightening things. Those people who were happy about Charlie Kirk's killing and expressed themselves in those ways, I think it is probably not controversial to say, are the same people who want the United States to continue to support Ukraine and to be involved in Europe and to support NATO and to do all of those things.

If you look at who the neocons are, people like Victorian Luland, Robert Kagan, who's just written a massive piece in the Atlantic, one of the most interesting things about them is that they're not interested really in the United States at all. They're never right about the United States. They're not concerned about the United States. the welfare of the people of the United States. Their overriding focus is ultimately Europe. They are the most pro-European, or at least the most intensely involved in European affairs of all of the members of the US political class.

So there is an immediate connection here. It's people who want to focus on the United States, who care about the United States, who are upset about the fact that Charlie Kirk and people like that was killed, who want a normalization, if you like, of life in the United States, who care about the Constitution, who do care about free speech, by the way. And there's a lot to discuss here.

I've been noticing some of the things that people have been saying on the threads, and we might come back. that in the very superchats and things. But those people are on one side. They are on one side. Those people who want interventions and want to continue the forever wars, who believe that the America has some kind of role or responsibility that obliges it to continue to immerse itself in European affairs and to arm Zelensky and his people

and to send on money there. They are, if you like, on the other side of this question. And I think that is something that perhaps needs to be understood. It's what I was saying before, that it's the foreign policy that ultimately connects with many of the domestic issues in the United States, in the United States as well. Now, on other things about Trump and him having called the European bluff, he has, and they are incredibly upset and angry about this. We're only starting to get glimmers of how angry they are. But I've been reading more and more articles about how difficult some of the telephone conversations

and video calls between the Europeans and Trump are now, and how frustrated and angry Zelensky is. And Zelensky apparently had a meeting with his MPs. And only now are we getting a sense of how furious he was, how angry he was when he met the MPs and how shocked they were at how upset and angry he was. And the reason he is angry, and he's made no secret about this,

is because Trump isn't doing what he wants. This is the problem. He was expecting Trump. He thought back in July that he got Trump trapped into imposing these massive sanctions on the Russians and all these enormous tariffs on China and India and all of those things. And he now realizes it is not going to happen. He understands also that this flow of weapons of the United States,

United States is ending the Europeans know all about, as I said, this national security review. There was a fascinating article in Reuters, which is, of course, a British news agency. Never forget that. And a British news agency very, very close historically to the intelligence services and the British Foreign Office. And Reuters were saying that the Americans and the Europeans had this incredibly difficult and tense meeting at the end of August. when the Americans told them that they're going to start reducing their military role in the Baltic with the East European and Baltic nations at precisely the time when the Europeans were looking to create a clash with the Russians in the Baltic and were relying on the Americans coming in. And now the Europeans are horrified because Trump won't play along with the absurdity of the drones and the fact.

that Russian fighter jets go from one Russian base to another Russian base and criss-cross the Baltic. They're very, very upset and they're very, very angry about all of these things. And I think this isn't a rift. People are talking about it as a rift. I think this is a pivot. This is a moment when things start to change. and that the United States realizes that this 80-year turn in its traditional foreign policy, which always made sense from an American point of view, which is to be the United States in North America, focus on itself, avoid connections, entanglements in European affairs,

as the first American president, George Washington said, to the American people, as John Quincy Adams used to say, as President Eisenhower in his own way also said that this traditional foreign policy is gradually coming back and that this long, aberrant period in which the United States has been involved far too deeply in the affairs of Europe is finally coming to an end. That is what I think. I think it's absolutely correct. And to the question that the super chat, you know, the globalist component. So my premise is, I think is Alex has been referencing as well recently,

is that you don't only have these nations competing against each other in a traditional map, that you've got a globalist elite. And what is a globalist? The easiest definition is George Soros. But it's a belief that nationalism is a problem. Patriotism is a problem. that these are bad things, that these are limiting restraints. Soros' ideal world is a small group of elites govern the world

and internationalist organizations. And that's what globalists believe. And they don't look at a local population in some place to serve, as someplace to help, as someplace to grow. They see it as an asset on their balance sheet to use for their globalist ambitions. And this is why you can have Starmour, Mertz, and Macron, the three unholy trinity of Europe support, for more Ukrainian conflict, are all hated in their own countries,

and they don't appear to care about that fact. And then you see them rotated around, these utterly incompetent people that just get rotated, and they keep bouncing up. They keep bouncing up somehow. It's like, how does this person help destroy Germans' political coalition and the Green Party end up at the UN? Like, how do you keep falling upwards?

Because they are serving not their nation's interest, not their people's interest, but globalist interests. and they know they'll have a permanent job, permanent money, a permanent state as part of this permanent political class, as long as they serve globalist interests. The moment they serve their people's interests, they get targeted the way Serbia is being targeted currently, the way Hungary is being targeted currently,

the way, I mean, Figo attempted assassination. It's always interesting who they attempt assassinations on it. I think it's kind of revelatory of its own kind. It was why I always had doubts about the sole madman, soul assassin theory in whatever case it was. It's like, why is it the sole assassin never finds Bill Gates, right? But finds the challenger, the reformer, the populist, the upstart, the underdog. That's always the person they seem to magically find, but they're sole nut jobs, right?

Issues with that. But I think we'll find the Charlie Kirk murder, most likely connected to a cadre of radical left people here. What is is we, you guys will understand this. It's like the best version of what's happening here in the left and part of the United States. It's just slightly lower on the violence scale. But it's of the kind in the 60s and 70s that ravaged Europe, parts of Germany, parts of Greece, parts of France. You had Operation Gladio on one side. You had all these other radical groups, the Red Guard, the Red, I think Germany they had like eight different names of these things.

I think some of them are still on the list. It was like with some of my liberal friends and said, you know, when does anybody ever attack the capital? Only conservatives did that on January 6th, not knowing that the, you know, the, you know, the Puerto Rican radicals shot up the capital. Feminist radicals tried to blow up the Senate. The other leftist radicals tried and shot a man, shot a congressman from Kentucky in the chambers. So, you know, the, unfortunately, this has happened in the past.

But there are ways in which we can deal with it. The best ways to extract. Because the other thing I'm concerned about is what have we unleashed in Ukraine that could haunt Europe and even the U.S. for a long time? What happens when you unleash the darkest, impulses in humanity and you help train them. Well, we kind of have an idea, right? We've decided to arm and train the Taliban and then al-Qaeda. It's not like that didn't come back to Biden us. So we'll see how all of that progresses and proceeds. But I think that basically to understand

the world, understand that the Bearbox, the Van der Crazes, the Starmers, the Macrons. Macron doesn't care about France. Macrons be the leader of the world, really. That's what you like to be. you know, Napoleon number two, as Alex calls him. I mean, I think he was even little like the, but you get those kind of dynamics that are afoot where these people's interest is not their own nation. They see their nation as an asset to use. I remember this debate in the U.S., classic version, Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, 1999, where Madeline Albright said, well, what good are soldiers if you don't use them?

And Powell said the point of having soldiers is to not use them. He goes, they're not risk. They're not little tokens of risk on a board game. That's the gap. And that's the fight we're still fighting. And I mean, what's scary is a lot of, the Pentagon did a very effective job of putting the most nutty, loony people in positions of power. So like the last time we had to deal with this was post-World War II, where you had bombs away

LeMay when he wasn't torch bombing Dresden was busy torch bombing Tokyo. A little word of the wise to Ambassador Huckabee. I would not use the fire bombing of Dresden as a good, positive historical illustration of why you think it's good what Israel is doing in Gaza. I mean, unless you wanted to condemn it. peculiar logic there. But those generals were power mad. They're like, hey, we just won World War II. We got nuclear weapons.

Nobody else does. Let's go into China. Let's go into Soviet Union. Let's conquer them all. And it unleashed, along with the CIA and that whole NSA and the national security establishment that got emerged that Truman would regret ever authorizing in late 1940. Basically, as you pointed out, Alexander, hijacked American foreign policy away from its roots.

And I know that there's some leftists and others out there that perceive America is always this totalitarian empire and all that's just simply not the history from an objective perspective. Most of our politics is we do not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy. We were a nation founded on divorce from Europe and disentanglement from foreign war. What did, as you pointed out, what did President Washington say in his farewell address, be really careful about allies. I've been sharing that with some Israeli friends of mine. The allies will get you into more trouble than adversaries because of its affection.

This was when he was making the decision to not get involved on behalf of the French against the English after the French incited with the American Revolutionaries against the English during the American Revolution. So you're right. This is a return to roots, a return to origin. And I hope we continue in that path. Now, it looks like what's happened. on and it's the ultimate defeat of global. I think it's why they hate Putin so much. What combines, unites Putin and Trump. They're both deep, deep nationalists with Victor Orban and others.

You might disagree with their politics, their policies, their personalities have at it. But what unites them is that they love their country, undisputably. And that's what offends the George Soroses of the world so much. That's what offends the globalists so much. Zelensky is a useful idiot,

a useful tool. to launder money and enrich and empower his psychotic friends at the expense and to the detriment of the Ukrainian people. It was what happens when you have four leaders. I was trying to even think of historical, and maybe you guys could come up with some. But I was trying to think out, when's the time in history,

we have a bunch of leaders of nations who don't care what happens to their nation, who doesn't care, who don't care what happens to their people in their nation, to the heartland of their people, that they, in fact, I mean, will use them to their detriment, no matter what. And I was trying it. I was like, I mean, that's the case in Ukraine and Europe,

in the deep state apparatus in the United States, Canada, large parts of the world. I mean, the only thing that the reason what unites, well, another person, G in China, nationalists. George Soros hates Trump, hates Putin, hate G, why? He hates nationalists. So that's what a globalist is. And to me, that's the greatest threat. It's not American exceptionalism. It's not European exceptionalism. It's none of those things, as much as it is, a globalist elite that wants to consolidate power that sees nations as the threat, nationalism as the threat. And to overcome it, we need to return to a nation-based,

geopolitical, realist-based foreign policy. So the world doesn't explode while we're doing these various globalist utopian dystopian objectives. To answer your question, when have we ever had a situation where so many states have been led by leaders who are not interested in their own country? I cannot think of one. There have been periods in history

when leaders of specific states have been less interested in their states. So the period of the French Revolution, for example, is one when the French Revolutionaries, some of them, not all of them, wanted to expand France all across Europe because their mission was to extend the ideas of the French Revolution across Europe

to everybody and if they sacrifice France in the process, then so be it. The Russian Revolution is another period, just after the Russian Revolution. As just actually pointed out to me, just recently when I was in Russia, one of the extraordinary things about post-revolutionary Russia is it stopped calling itself Russia. He called itself the Soviet Union, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And apparently it was suggested to Lenin, well, why don't we, you know, inserts Russian into it somewhere in some part of this name. And he said, no, no, we don't want to do that because everybody else is going to join us.

We're going to submerge ourselves in this great confederation of all nations in which we're all going to be one. So you do have these very exceptional moments, revolutionary moments, but you've never had a situation like this in which there is a kind of transnational group of people, Some of them are leaders of countries, some of them ultimately control these countries in all kinds of ways or shape policies in these countries, who basically are not rooted and don't have specific loyalties to the countries that they live in. Can I give an example of how un-American, if you like, that is? I, again, I've studied American history very deeply. One of the things I remember about the so-called robber barons on the late 19th century and early 20th century America. Yes, they may have been terrible people who did terrible things, but they were 100% Americans, and they absolutely did care about America.

If you're talking about someone like J.P. Morgan, for example, who was ultimately their godfather, if you like, he talked about our plan. and our plan was a plan to industrialize and modernize America. I mean, they absolutely were very deeply rooted in American society, and they cared about it intensely. Even though at the same time, of course, they were out to make as much money for themselves as they could, but they believed that they were doing it for a greater, wider purpose. And as a matter of fact, they were right.

That is the difference. Somebody like Soros, and not just Soros, lots of other people like it, are not rooted in quite the same way in the societies that they come from. I mean, they think of themselves as more international people who are involved in many places around the world and want to shape all of them in particular ways

that they wish to. And as I said, I want to stress, I mentioned one particular business person, others, you'll find people in Germany, in Britain, in France, perhaps most articulately in France, who are the same. And those are the people I would call globalists. And of course, their institution, the institution that they created, the European Union, the group that played a major role in pushing European integration in the 1960s, ultimately, became the World Economic Forum, Davos and all of that. So the world of Davos, that's what I mean by globalist. That's, I think, what Robert was talking about too. And I think that we are, that was never a sustainable project.

It was never going to work in the end. It has done real harm in the process, in the way that it's done. The wreckage that you see in Europe now is a product of it. The United States, because it's larger, because it has bigger traditions, because it's more powerful, and it's because it's richer, retains a degree of urgency, agency, sorry. And because of that, it's the first in a sense to start to break away. And if it conclusively breaks away, then the entire project is gone. Exactly. And then that's my understanding as well.

What would be best for the U.S. is to divorce from the problems of Europe. What would be best for the people of Europe is for the U.S. to divorce the problems of Europe and not be a backstop to a corrupt rogue globalist institutions, which do not care about Europeans or American ordinary working class people, period. Now, on the economic front, what's going to continue to drive this, aside for domestic politics, on U.S. foreign policy is where there's increasing indicators of an incoming and incipient recession and economic risk. And Trump's been sort of navigating through this. And the way in which it could all blow up on them would be if we got in, if we actually issued

massive sanctions, actually took Russia's oil off the global market, you know, got involved the conflict with Iran that led to them closing the Straits of Hormuz. The global risk are his greatest domestic political risk because of its economic ramifications. The how in which we maneuver through this will be another key component as Trump goes forth. So far he's been able to back down, back out, find exit ramps. A lot of those offered by Putin and other people. And sometimes he begrud, somebody goes down the exit ramp and he goes, maybe I'll go back

up the XR, right? I don't know, maybe it'll go back down. You know, so it gets a little frustrating. But on the economic side, here's a few. You want to find some unusual economic indicators that are actually highly predictive. One is strip club spending. So when strip club spending goes down, it means people are struggling. They don't get that disposable cash.

The second is lighting boats on fire. So this has been long tracked by insurance companies. What happens when people get really economically stressed, they look at their boat and they have insurance and they let it on fire. So if you see unusual boat fire increases, it's actually a sign of an insipient recession. We still have a completely frozen housing market and real estate market. The Fed, despite Trump going after, you know, even fired one of the Fed governors, but a federal court put her back in there. Because it turns out being a mortgage fraudster, a financial fraudster, qualifies you to work for the Federal Reserve. It's not disqualifying. It's qualifying. You understand

what the federal central banks are all there? for after all to rip other people off. But you know, got them to cut rates a little bit, needs them to cut rates a lot more because the housing market's frozen. But not only that, as you guys were discussing in the Russian economy, you have the other people interested in the interest rates or anybody who needs to borrow. That's commercial developers. That's construction industry, that small business enterprise, all those people. And for the most part, those markets have been cramped by these high interest rates. So that's the, you know, he needs that to come down. Aside from avoiding global disaster that could trigger economic

energy problems that could unravel these entire U.S. economy, for which Iran and Russia remain the front, though, China would be too if we actually got into some sort of kinetic conflict. I think that's clearly off the table for a range of reasons, aside from the Pentagon saying we're going to shift away from that anyway. The reality is that the rare earth monopoly that China was able to establish puts them in the ultimate ace card. So there's only so much we can do, period, until and unless we have both the political wherewithal and the capital invested to do rare earth production. Problem is that rare earth production ain't pretty, look at.

And that's why it runs into problems in the Western world. And that's why it's dominated by places outside of Europe and the United States. People don't want the environmental consequence. The other thing, would it come from effective development and production of rare earth? Even though we have, you know, some of rare earth supply. There's another place, though, where Russia could help. And we could, you know, get on that page globally. But so there are, so the, between the, the, some other indicators are the, terms of like the car loan

industry. There's a major subprime car loan lender that is going to go through bankruptcy. That's also apparently under criminal investigation for fraud. But what it is is a bunch of young people went out and bought cars during the pandemic because they didn't have to pay back the student loan debt and they were getting the stimmy checks. They're defaulting at a rate higher than two, than the global financial crisis. So we've got these under, you know, we've got a, you know, we've got a, frozen housing economy. We've got interest rates holding high interest rates holding up the ability to unleash some capital in the United States. And then we've got these little red flags, little flares going off of distress in the economy in the subprime, what's happening in subprime auto industry,

what's happening in things like house fires and strip clubs. Another example is like it was one of these things that got popularly discussed in certain economic circles, a real estate lawyer put up. He goes, normally there's never any pretty girls in the eviction court. he goes, I've been seeing a bunch of pretty girls in eviction court. And the logic is just that, you know, if you're pretty, you have your own asset, somebody's going to pick up your rent for you somewhere or someplace. Even they don't, you know, even the simps are out of cash. Even the bettas are out of cash. So the, so with that kind of fragile economic situation we're in, we cannot afford triggering any kind of global energy shock, which is what further involvement in Russia would do, further involvement with Iran could do. So I think that becomes while he deals with trying to get the. Federal Reserve at some level under control in order to keep the economy from going into recession. This is all very interesting and it's very important. Now, can I just say something? Because I've been tracking very carefully what's been happening in Europe and, of course, in Britain. We are going into an even, I suspect, much deeper recession. And our economic problems are

much more profound over here. And this brings me back to the other topic. because if the United States cuts this link to Europe, which has been, in my opinion, it's not just a political and geopolitical burden. It's increasingly becoming an economic one. It cuts its links to Europe. If it starts forging and working by itself and for itself in terms of its policies, if all the political and mental energy, I mean, you must never overlook the importance of mental energy, by the way.

If the President of the United States and his officials are spending all their time worrying about Europe and what is going on there, then they're not going to be able to use the time that they're wasting on Europe to think about what is going on in downtown Chicago, where I didn't go, or in Tennessee or wherever. And that plays a very, very important role in causing governments to lose their way, to lose their contact with their own people. But if the United States starts to break away from this and starts to focus on itself, then all kinds of opportunities start to appear. And these are economic opportunities.

And you're absolutely correct. Kirill Dimitriyev, who is the head of the Russian direct investment fund, and who's very close to Putin, by the way, and also to various other people in the Russian political system. He has been busy trying to get the Americans to understand. We are a more natural economic partner for you than many of the European countries are. We are much more like you than. then they are. We are a big continental economy, just as you are a big continental economy. We have abundant natural resources. You have abundant natural resources. We have industries, maybe not as big as yours, but we nonetheless have them. We have a tradition in aerospace technology. You have, of course,

the world's leading aerospace technology. Once upon the time, back in the 70s, we wanted to build Lockheed tried stars in Varanesh. It's a story that most people about now. I know all about it, but anyway, complicated story. Let's get back. Let's start doing these things again. And about China, don't worry so much. They are not out. They understand that the game in terms of, you know, making lots of cheap exports and sending to the United States, they understand that it's over, which is why they are coming to us too because they understand that they can't just go on exporting to the United States,

getting dollars in the United States, then using those dollars to buy raw materials and other goods in Africa and wherever. They need to dispel up economic links. That's why they're building pipelines with us. That's why they're doing all of those things. Far from it being something you should be worried about, it's something that should tell you that the Chinese are also turning in on themselves

because that's what they're doing. They're securing their natural resources so that they can focus on developing their own economy domestically. It's the need to obtain resources from outside that has made them focus so much on export. when they become, in effect, part of a bigger Eurasian system, that pressure is not going to be there so much, and that will give you economics-based degree. Now, if you go to the Russian media,

all of this has been discussed there. I'm not saying anything that I'm making up myself, because the Russians talk about it all the time. When I went to St. Petersburg, I heard exactly those conversations take place back, in June. So there are lots of opportunities the Americans could build on. There would be, the door would be open to them. People understand a lot about America's abilities as enterprise and technology and all of those kind of things. There is, there is a world to join if you like, but just put aside this fixation with Europe,

which is no longer even economically that important anymore. Yeah, exactly. It came across a BBC documentary recently about World War I, and I thought, oh, this would be interesting. And the whole theme was, why didn't we get along? Or World War II, yeah, things were World War I was. Whatever was, basically the whole theme was, we should work more with the Germans rather than those nasty Russians.

Like, what in the world? We don't need to be part of that, that rusiphobe European environment to isolate us and cut us off from a natural ally. Orthodox religious beliefs in Russia, very similar to Middle America. Well, the Russians with attitude put it, if you're in rural Russia, there's not a lot other than the unique architectural structures of the Orthodox, local Orthodox church. You're not going to see a lot of differences. You're going to have religious people that love guns, trucks. The only difference is maybe they keep a bear as a pet. That's about it.

But absolutely, if Trump pursues the path that you gentlemen have laid out that he was elected on, that people like Vance and Tulsi Gabbard and Bobby Kennedy and others support and embrace, an America First MAGA populist proposal that gets us out of Europe and these foreign entanglements that doesn't look at China as a source of kinetic conflict. but instead as reorganizing and reincorporating a different economic vision that protects American industry, then that is more aligned to what the American people want, but also what is in the best interest of the United States? In the end, what's the best interest of the people around the world?

So let's hope he pursues it. Let's hope he remembers the best of Charlie Kirk and incorporates that in it. People want to watch part of the memorial that, you know, Robert Kennedy speaks for about five minutes, and you can see he gets emotional towards the end. but he says, you know, friendships, good friendships are a sign that God loves us. That was a beautiful way of putting it. There's no reason why we can't have a good friendship with Russia.

What we don't need to be in is in an abusive relationship like we cut when sometimes the abuser, sometimes the abuse, which has been our dynamic with Europe since we bailed them out of two world wars. Absolutely. I'm going to ask you now from the sublime to the somewhat ridiculous. What has happened to the Democratic Party? Because I should just know this is something,

this is something from the British media. There is, of course, the British wants the Democratic Party very much with the next presidential election of the United States. But they say, look, Trump has got all of these problems. The economy is looking soft. The situation says not everything is going well. And yet his popularity might be slipping a little. but the Democrats, they're still plunging.

Is this actually true? Are they a potential danger? I mean, I think the biggest risk Trump faces is from the neocon globalist crowd that's built into the Rhino establishment here in the U.S. Lady Lindsay is a greater threat to the success of Trumpism in the midterms and going forward, Vance and others, than anyone else on the Democratic side. What is true, so the party registration, not all states have party registration. In some states, you don't have to register by party. Or even if you do, you don't have to be a member of that party to vote in its primaries. They have open primaries. Some have closed primaries. So you have different kinds of data. But what is universal is there is pretty much almost every state of America. The Democrats continue to decline in voter registrations. And Republicans continue to gain an edge in party identification. and affiliation, the same thing happens. Now, what was happening is because of some of these

failures to deliver on Epstein, failures to deliver on some aspects of the justice reform, failures to deliver to date on certain aspects of food freedom and relief for small farmers, aspects of medical freedom and dealing with COVID and the rest. Because there have been some delays throughout the summer, he was losing the enthusiasm of a key young part of his base that could have negatively and adversely impacted the midterms, which in turn could impact his political capital in the buildup to the midterms. You guys do a great job in describing people like Starmor. Yeah, there might not be an election for four years,

but how does he function if the floor has fallen in beneath him? So the same is true for Trump. If the perception is he's DOA in the midterms, he becomes DOA a year sooner than that if everybody perceives it that way. So now the Kirk murder has re-engaged a lot of those young conservatives. who are shocked and horrified by it, and so that may not be as much of a factor. But if you can stay out of these various war conflicts, then the Democratic Party's continued implosion.

The best way to think of it, for those that have studied American politics long term, is I would look at the Democratic Party of the 1920s and early 1970s. That would be the best comparison to where they are today. Now, what those two time periods have in common is a Democratic Party got wiped out politically in the 1920s and wiped out of large part, at least of the presidential scale, in 1972. And you have the same dynamics. You have this liberal elite, or I would say neoliberal, neoliberal professional managerial class that has radicalized a whole portion of its constituency to believe in saying things.

And as they're not going forward and saying, let's debate what tactically is going to work vis-a-Ukraine and Russia. It's, oh, no, Russia, evil, Ukraine, beautiful. and that's it. And anybody who sides with Russia, sides with dictators and ogres and so forth, and the rest. They have that logic across the board. And they're losing support on a regular basis. They don't have a substantive message. It's like, what is the substantive message? I mean, there really isn't one. Frankly, the Democratic Party hasn't had a coherent domestic policy since President John Kennedy, in my opinion. You know, LBJ was all over the place. Jimmy Carter was all over the place. Bill Clinton was all over the place. Barack Obama. I mean, many of them were much more.

neoliberal than they were FDR style, New Deal style, labor-driven policies and politics. Much as you've described Alexander in the UK, where we went, you know, you went from 1950s, 1960s, a majority of Labor Party MPs actually coming from unions. And now you're lucky if there's one or two up there. And many of the true Labor Party elites despise and look down on these people, you know, all the different names they have for them. I remember reading a book about it. It's amazing. The set of the class prejudice is still. very strong in parts of Britain.

And it's just, it's now the Labor Party that's the snobs. The same is in Democratic Party is the party of snobs and the party of crazies. That's not a good coalition. That's not a persuasive coalition to Normies in middle of middle Americans. So right now the Democrats don't have a message. Rokana occasionally develops one on the War Powers Resolution Act, working with Thomas Massey, on Epstein files. You know, they've made a little bit of inroads there. But otherwise, they've relied on mistakes by Trump, self-sabotage by,

the Republicans in order to have any chance going forward in the near short term. And if the Republicans would stop self-sabotage, Trump would stop self-sabot and deliver on the populist agenda, particularly on foreign policy matters, then the net effect, in my opinion, would be that he would be an unusually good position come the midterms compared and contrasted to the norm, which would be normally in the second term or the second midterms, you usually lose the House and maybe even the Senate. I don't think that's going to happen now. It'll be close. I mean, there's also redistricting here, but all the things that go on, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, some other states are making it a little bit easier for Republicans to hold the house. But it will depend heavily on sticking to populist principles and not self-sabotage. But what they have

going for them is they have a Democratic Party. It's like the Labor Party, the UK. Like, I don't see the future. I don't see it's like the Tories. What future? And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, right now there isn't outside of small little pockets because they've become like radicals like parts of them were in the 20s and parts of them were in the 70s where you know they winked and nodded at the weather underground and the black panthers and then Puerto Rican groups and these groups are groups that turn violent very badly from late 60s forward so unless they rediscover their populist roots the Democratic Party that you know Andrew Jackson you know came from my part of the country Tennessee

I think that Democratic Party doesn't have a message. What right now they have going for is the same thing Labor had in the last election, that everybody else was worse. And then Labor could sneak in with the lowest percentage vote, have the hugest landslide in terms of MPs for the smaller share of the vote in the history of the UK. Right now, Democratic Party, and often the UK and the U.S. are probably the most trend together. You know, you had kind of managerial competence with Harold Wilson and it was kind of like

Jimmy Carter, Margaret Thatcher was. you know, previewed Ronald Reagan, very similar. John Major was kind of a lot like Poppy Bush. Tony Blair was very Bill Clinton-ish. The, and some of the others like the, you know, Daniel Cameron was very kind of Mitt Romney-esque. So the Nigel Farage is kind of Trumpish. Brexit was, you know,

you know, previewed what that Trump could succeed. So the, what you're seeing in the U.K., the same thing you're seeing in the U.S. on the left. that right now the left does not have a coherent message, doesn't have a coherent messenger. The biggest anti-war voices, the biggest people even calling out Trump are on the right. They're Marjorie Taylor Green,

there's Steve Bannon, they're Alex Jones, they're Thomas Massey, they're those people. It's not on the left. The left right now is not voicing a coherent, consistent criticism that works because they've been like the early 1970s co-opted by a group of professional managerial class people that could care less that are attached to neoliberal foreign policy.

I mean, they've even lost their anti-war roots outside of Ro Khanna and some sectors and segments of their party. They have going for them probably that Israel will become a political pariah in the United States if they continue the path in Gaza. It looks a lot like ethnic cleansing to me. I mean, you know, people, my Israeli friends can make their arguments. Sure looks like that to me. That that is becoming a real political problem.

Trump's going to have to deal with that next. But as long as Trump doesn't self-sabotage and delivers on the populist message, they're going to be that brand is going to have an upper edge upper hand in American politics for maybe a decade plus to come because the Democratic Party right now is DOA and committing, you know, fractricide at a mass level. You want to know what the Labor Party and the leadership of the Labor Party think of its working class base, its previous working class base. I suggest people who watch these go to the YouTube version, the cartoon version. of Mr. Bean and see how working class people are represented there. English, British working class people are represented there. I can barely watch it. It makes me so angry to see.

But that is what they think of the people who used to support the Labour Party. Remember it was called the Labour Party. Once upon the time, the party of working people. Well, it is absolutely not that anymore. And I get the sense the same is true of the Democratic, Democratic Party as well. If you go back and see film of President Kennedy talking to working class Americans, you will see how absolutely at ease and comfortable he is, how he's able to talk with them, how they're able to talk to him, how it's a discussion of equals, which it is, by the way, despite the fact that, you know, he comes from wealth and they clearly don't.

and he's even able to joke about it on occasion in ways that make them all laugh. And they have a program together. And he is fully aware of what they are concerned about and interested in. And of course, they know that he does understand what they are concerned about and interested in. And therefore, that reason they trust him. That doesn't exist anywhere on the left anymore. You're not going to find it in Britain. You don't find it in the Democratic Party either.

And I agree. I think that the other thing I should say, Robert, which I've just been reading extracts of Kamala Harris's book about the election. I know that's a strange thing to do. But she doesn't know why she lost. It's quite extraordinary to read this. I bet when you read it, when you read it, when you read it, when you read sections of it, you expect her to win.

She writes as it. A lot of it is written in the present tense. It's most weird. And this is all the lead-up, you know, she says, you know, this person doesn't write because he wouldn't work in my administration. What administration! You lost! It's very, very weird.

And, of course, she says all sorts of things about other Democrats, important Democrats, and about Joe Biden, all of which I suspect is true, by the way. And they've all taken a huge offense, as what she's saying. At least this is what I've heard. But at no point does she ask herself, well, if all of these people in my party are as bad as that,

then what am I even doing in this party? It's a very odd book. And I have to say, it's one of the strangest political men. was I have ever read, and you are absolutely correct, if you're looking for a program, a sense of direction, a sense of what she wanted to do as president, you're not going to find it there. It's nowhere to be found. I mean, she has ideas about this and about that, about, you know, some things about, you know, public defenders and all of this,

but there is absolutely nothing that holds it all together and actually gives you any sense of what this person ultimately is about other than that she believes that she should be president, not that she wants to be president, but that she should be president, that she has a right to be president somehow. Anyway, it's a very, very strange book. And the other thing I would say, and this is general, about the Democrats, is that, you know what Talleyrand, French statesman said about the Bobins, they've forgotten nothing and learnt nothing. I mean, they remember everything. They remember

every single transgression of their political enemies, but they have understood and learned nothing from what has happened to them over the last few years. And that in itself, I suspect dooms them. Anyway, that's what I wanted to say. If you haven't read Kamala's book, I strongly recommend it. It's good for the laughs. It's just a second. Yeah, they should put it in the comedy section.

It's like James Elroy used to describe his American tabloid trilogy, so that they really have guts, they'll put my fiction books in the history section. If they have honesty, they'll put Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' book in the comedic section. I should quickly say it's obviously not written by her. That's the other side of it. I mean, it's far more coherent than she ever manages to be. But I presume the sentiments and the ideas are hers, just to say. Yeah, exactly.

I mean, yeah, it's extraordinary. Yeah, we can turn to the super chat questions if you want out. Okay, let's do that. Yeah, let's do it. We've got a lot of questions, but let's run through as many as we can. Yeah. Let's start with Sparky right here. Will President Trump end of the war on small business?

Without small business and labor unions, it's not possible to have large, thriving middle class, which is key to a stable economy. Agreed. I mean, Trump is, I mean, you know, Trump was the first Republican president a long time to have major union support, including the members of private sector unions involved in industry. Most of their members voted for Trump, even if not all their leaders endorsed. And I saw this problem at the AFLCIO when I was an intern there as a young college student, that it was the beginning of the transformation.

Like you still had some old school labor guys there, but you can see the new wave coming in or professional managerial class people. And it was like they really didn't, you know, they were like the quasi-populist of, you know, the early Soviet, you know, late 19th century Russia where you had a lot of these intellectuals kind of imagining what life would be like with the peasants and then not realizing what life was like for the peasants and the peasants be like, who are you, we're weirdos. It's that kind of dynamic. You got this professional managerial class cadre at the top.

of the unions and they don't advocate for the union. I dealt with this. I was at law school. So you had a graduate student union tied to other Wisconsin unions. I was the law student representative on behalf of us in the union negotiations with the university. I don't ever forget this grad student was across from me. And she was obsessed with representing immigrant members, immigrant people who had chosen not to join those immigrants who had rejected the union was her obsession because for her own political purposes. And I was like, shouldn't we be here to make sure we advocate for our members? He said, shouldn't that be our focus? Shouldn't we not sacrifice membership interest for some other political cause? And she looked at me aghast. Like, you don't understand.

The union's here to serve my politics. It's not here to serve the members of working class people. And that's the problem with our union leadership in the U.S. 75, 80% of it don't, they couldn't do the job of the people they represent in terms of, you know, in the factories. So, but I agree with it. Hopefully Trump will, I think there will be good announcements coming on food freedom. that's based on conversations I've had with the people that matter. Bobby Kennedy, they tried to take them out. Last three weeks was an attempted political coup on Bobby Kennedy. They came back in with big hearings and news media hit pieces and all the rest.

They failed. Kennedy was very close with Charlie Kirk as well. Charlie was part of putting together that whole coalition. Kennedy announced this week of the connection between Tylenol and autism, which were those people that don't know that that original connection was actually revealed by people researching Cuba because they were trying to figure out why does Cuba, which has a high vaccination rate, have a low autism rate,

whereas much of the Western world has this high, the higher the vaccination rate, the higher the autism rate. And one of the things that the doctor found, the scientists found, was it in Cuba, they didn't like to give him Tylenol, or that version of Tylenol. I'm going to mispronounce the word, so I'm not going to try to pronounce it.

Aetamophine or methamphetamine, whatever it is, you know, a little terminology. But basically, because they thought it was healthy for both the pregnant mother and the child to have a fever at certain times. So they said that was a sign that things were going correctly. So they didn't obsess with, hey, we don't want you to feel bad. So here, take this pill right now. We give huge amounts.

And since the 1970s have basically been bombarding both children and pregnant mothers in late terms with a lot of use of Tylenol. And that was different between us and Cuba. And the person speculated maybe that is having a role in the autism increase. And there's more studies. and that's what Bobby Kennedy announced on Monday, was that in fact, Tylenol for pregnant women in certain circumstances

can be a risk factor for autism and that they're going to advise doctors to take a different path. So the coup effort against them failed. Kennedy will continue to do it. He's going more aggressively in that direction, the more aggressively at dealing with all the problems of corporatized food and big medicine

and big pharma and big food. And is going to include within that the mental health issues of things like school shootings. I mean, we've been in drugging, everybody in the West, but at least in the U.S. Since if you're a boy from the age of five, they're sticking drugs in you. Oh, you're too hyperactive. We're going to diagnose

you ADHD. So we're going to stick drugs in you at the age of five that are precursors that things like heroin is what they're being given. And the SSRI drug use is really high and it has a, you will not find very many mass

school shootings, church shootings, other public shootings of those kind, those terroristic kind of school of shootings. without usually a connection somewhere along the way to mental illness. And in particular, pharmaceuticals. They know they have these dangerous side effects with SSRIs and other things. So Kennedy is pursuing all of that as well. So hopefully Trump will, in fact, reinvigorate small business

and protect the private sector labor unions in the industrial context. He's done good work on steel. Steel workers really like them as far as what he's done there. Auto workers like him is what he's also done there. Now we've been, you know, a nice thing is Germany's busy hanging itself. So we don't have about Germany competing with us much longer. They're just cutting themselves off every way they know. So it's like, oh, hey, God bless.

I mean, I do love Trump selling Europe. Not only should you guys sanction all these people, you're going to become a dependent consumer market for the U.S. energy. It's interesting to watch. But so to that question, I think we will continue to see good policies in those areas. How good will depend on how much. Trump is able to get through the Congress, how much Trump stays focused on his voter base rather than his donor base. But we have seen a shift over the last, I would say, 45 days

more towards his voter base than his donor base. Charlie Kirk will probably further, his murder will probably further increase that, just given how Trump is. But we'll see. But so far, you know, there are promising indicators while there's also risk on the horizon. from bin lind antifa in europe should they be afraid you as pressure i have called for the trump administration to designate antifa as a foreign terrorist organization uh the reason for that uh is that i think they fit the definition if you conduct assassinations uh if you call for violence uh for politicized purposes uh i mean it's a little bit disturbing uh the the celebration of the luigi murder,

Luigi who murdered the, or is accused of murdering the United Healthcare Executive. And I'm not a big health care executive fan by any stretch. But the idea that so many people on the left were okay with it and even cheer it. I mean, he's got a huge fan section in the United States. I was like, that doesn't usually end well when you start cheering

public murders. So I think Antifa has a tendency to that, very strong in Seattle and Portland and other places. But this radically, it directly connected to Soros NGOs, all over the place. This isn't your great-grandpa's Antifa. This isn't your northern Italian fighting Mussolini. This isn't the East Berlin where the word originated. It is a little bit more like the Black Block,

you guys have seen it, 70s and 80s, that sort of resurged in Europe. Here in the U.S., Antifa's first major presence was 1999 with the Black Block, disrupting the World Trade Organization protest, devolved into chaos, devolved into looting and physical. property violence and personal violence. And what did that do? That led to less substantive criticisms of what the WTO was doing at the time, which was this new globalist economic order that would hurt American, all got distracted by the news of what the black block did.

So I think they've been a problem for a long time. I think they fit the legal definition in the United States of a foreign terror organization. They don't have to be exclusively foreign. They just have to have a foreign aspect. What's true is Trump has just designated them a domestic terror. organization. That is no immediate legal impact in the United States. It does help with resources because our state governments, 21 of our state governments have laws prohibiting terrorism as well. So what that allows is the feds and the state to coordinate on those issues. But to me,

if he's serious, designate Antifa foreign terrorist organization. I mean, to me, open borders, open society, you know, whatever the latest Soros label is, should be a major. I mean, you look anywhere in the Western world in the last 40 years. And find violent disruption and you're going to find some connection somewhere along the way to a soros funded NGO i mean it's just who the guy is uh ukraine is his favorite project look no further than what ukraine looks like to understand that so uh uh the i hope they go that route uh i think they will but it'll probably be uh within the next month because to designate someone a foreign terror organization you have all these legal predicates you have to go through you have to create

administrative record using both open source and classified information you have to make a determination based on it. That administrative record then has to be submitted to Congress. Congress has seven days to overturn it. If Congress doesn't, then anybody designated as a foreign terror organization under the list or as an affiliate or associate of it, then can sue in the district court of the, not to the district court of appeals of the District of Columbia, better titled the District of Corruption, in my opinion, we're going to have Gulf of America. Let's have District of Corruption if we're going to have honest labels. And then, and then, and, and, and, and, and, And if it was arbitrary or it violates constitutional rights,

and then federal court can set aside the FTO designation. Once the designation is there, if it is legally upheld, then you can seize assets. You can be charged with a crime for material support to a foreign terror organization that holds up to 20 years. And here, by the way, the left has laid up the roadmap. The Biden administration's attack on J6 people and other people is the legal roadmap by which you can actually take out in FIFA.

The more historical legal roadmap is using the Ku Klux Klan laws from the 1870s that was designed to deal with politicized violence from private organization at various points with government support or solicitude. That the Ku Klux Klan Act provides for other domestic remedies. Can I just say something about Antifa? Because this is something I don't know, but I was just curious about and I was wondering whether there might be some explanation here. because Antifa reminds me very, very much of the kind of things I remember happening in Europe in the 1970s and specifically in Germany.

Its politics and its culture is very strongly reminiscent to me of what was going on in German high schools and German universities at that time, out of which, of course, a culture of terrorism and violence and indisputable terrorism and violence, the Red Army faction,

the Baden-Mindhofgang, as it's otherwise not, for example, emerged. So I wonder whether, again, there hasn't been some transplant at some point of ideas that may have come out of specifically Germany. And I do think that the language also somehow feels that the rhetoric somehow reminds me very much of the rhetoric, you get you used to get in Germany at that time which I you know I encountered I'm actually encountered as a teenager in the 70s just to say so I wonder whether there is some kind of a

transplant of that from Germany into the United States it's all over Europe I mean and people's all over Greece well it is absolutely all over Greece oh well I know absolutely no it was it was a better that that health to you to your point Mark Bray, Professor at Dartmouth, I think now it at Rutgers, wrote a book on Antifa that popularized it here in the U.S. amongst the hard left. And so to your question, how does this European-rooted organization that's rooted in anti-communism going way back that's taking on these different transformations, how did it become a U.S. phenomenon when it was originally a European phenomenon? At least one of the people connected to it was a professor, Mark Bray, who's a huge advocate for it and popularized it here in the U.S. amongst left. But I agree also, at least in the U.S., I'm not buying there aren't deep state ties somewhere along the way. It just feels that way.

It has that texture, has that component to it, and so forth. To the question about Kimmel, I credit to Iranian kiddo for quoting him, I recommend he re-reared the quote. He says, he never said Maga got him killed. And his quote is, Maga is pretending that they're not the ones who killed Kik. Charlie. Yes, it's a little bit indirect, my friend, but that is exactly what the quote actually proves. I was going to say to Iranian Kid, it would be very careful when you ask a lawyer to pass a particular trial lawyer, an advocate like Robert, because he will always read and understand these things far better than any casual reader will, just to say. Klaus says the Kirk killing has a lot more the signs of an intelligence operation. They want you to suspect the left because it serves the elites to impose control.

Here's a mutual act. Something going on. I agree with my friend Chase Hughes that this has the forensic fingerprints of a SIEP, that a large part of this. I mean, like, how did we go from 4% of the country to 30% of the country, having, you know, now identifying is they're not sure what they're section? is. I mean, some of these things are just really weird, deeply personal, radical change, and it just happened organically? I'm not quite buying that. So I think the kind of,

I don't think the assassination itself necessarily will have deep state ties. But we already know it has indirect ones because there are both George Soros-connected organizations and USAID funded organizations tied to the alleged assassin. All right. So the indirect, it's, you know, USA grant for this group that then funds the the I think they call them Antifa queers of Salt Lake City or armed queers of Salt Lake it's something like that the labels and they were connected and for the people I've talked to did the the text people read was a cover story is what they believe it appeared this was a coordinated effort by a dozen or more people to help pull this off so the and I think if you dig in

What's the probability? At least you'll find some nudging going on in some of these online places. I think one of the scary things is modern technology has allowed Manchurian candidate MK Ultra-style ideas. I think, at least in theory, to be much more effective than they were before. I still think QAnon had some aspects of government fingerprints on it and Intel operation kind of gone awry. And I think they wanted them to be armed and they wanted January 6th to be much worse than it was so they could have a massive. have cracked out and take away everybody's speech and massive arrest and all the rest. It just didn't work because a lot of your conservatives, they left their guns at home because that's just not who they are in that mindset.

It's easier to get the left. People affiliated or associate ideologically with the left, particularly in the trans subworld to engage in violence, in my opinion, than it is on the right in terms of intel operations. So I don't think the assassination itself was an intel operation, but I would not be surprised that somewhere in the, we won't find some evidence of blowback, that some government ties, some government connection, some government funding that was at least at some level part of either radicalizing him, teaching him how to do these sort of things. I mean, he showed evidence of training, and they do OPSEC training.

And TIFA's OPSEC training is actually quite sophisticated in terms of, you know, all kinds of ways that they operate. So I think it is a serious, and Tifa is definitely a serious problem, in terms of the political permission slip really concerns me because once people start going down that path, that's when violence explodes. But we got to get it. We got to wrap our heads around it. And then some of it's a mental health issue, a public education issue.

The mess media just lies all the time. I mean, imagine, I mean, you have a bunch of people in America who really think anybody that's conservative is actually identical to Hitler. And it's like, okay, literally that's false. That's just absurd. But they believe it. And they believe it with a straight face. And what does that do?

that convinces them to that in their self-defense, Antifa started a self-defense. Kuklux Klan defined itself as self-defense. How do you convince people to go out and do things? You convince them it's in their self-defense to do so. And that's where you get this insanity. Yeah. Can you explain, Robert, the Bill Ackman. Oh, sure. So with regards to Charlie Kirk, a lot of people are talking about the Bill Lackman part. Correct. So there's two components. The one component that I think Israeli skeptics don't do themselves any favors is Queen Candice and some others are running around saying Israel murdered Kirk. That is definitely not the case. And I say this as someone has been very critical of Israel over the last six months.

The Iran War, the Gaza handling, the Syria issues, the Lebanon issues. You decide to bomb Qatar. I guess it was like bingo card. Which country is Israel not yet bombed? Let's make sure we get those before Bibi leaves office kind of thing. but they don't help themselves when every problem is answered with the Jews. You know, I mean, they don't, it was like when Candace Owens thought Stalin was a Jew and everything and just went on all these wild weird rants.

So now, Blumenthal hasn't done that. Blumenthal has done something separate. Max has identified what he considered a massive pressure campaign to which he attributed Bill Ackman and others on Charlie. Charlie has publicly spoken about this to Megan Kelly and others that there was an effort he didn't identify Acman as a source, but there were big donors who threatened and even took away donations to Turning Point, which is mostly a public charitable organization for public education, debate and dialogue on high school and college campuses. There's no, and I had discussions with Charlie while this is all going on over the last five months. Charlie was transitioning from a deferential perspective on Israel to a skeptical perspective on Israel, not anti-Israel, but just skeptical.

It was like, when it's in our geopolitical best interest, fine. when it's not your problem you deal with it don't drag us into it as steve bannon says on a daily ramp and he was quit dragging us into your stupid wars uh so he charlie was in but he wasn't all the way there he like steve bannan alex jones tucker carlson much stronger critics of israel still than charley was charlie was more i'm getting a little nervous about where this is going i'm getting and he was a conduit to the white house to say a lot of young conservatives are not on board with just doing whatever uh the whatever b b b nithy yahoo wants and there was increasing concern.

But I think they've overstated, I don't think Max has, but I think the others have overstated this when they get to the point of assassination, all this stuff. That isn't what happened. I don't know whether Ackman put pressure on him. Ackman has denied that.

Ackman has said he went to it at Charlie's invitation of the Hamptons. I don't know. It's Ackman. So I don't fully trust him to be blunt about it. I do know Charlie was getting massive pressure. And I also know that if you knew Charlie Kirk, that was exactly the way he would get the opposite reaction.

So when that person said, I'm going to pull my $2 million donation, Charlie's response was, I'm going to make Tucker Carlson the head speaker at our next fourth turning point events. So you weren't going to influence Charlie that way. All right. Let's run through some more quick questions, Robert, because there are a lot of questions which are addressed to you. Is Pam Bonding willfully incompetent or question? I call her pay for play, Pam, because that's what she was known as in Florida. and she has been, you know,

I'm hoping she improves, but here's the reality. If she does not get meaningful indictments against people like James Comey, people like John Brennan, people like John Bolton, people like Clapper, these Deep State rogue, people like Leticia James, people like Adam Schiff, these rogue, corrupt, deep state-related actors that have committed obvious apparent crimes to the rest of us.

If she doesn't get meaningful indictments in that, she will be by the end of the year. She's got until Christmas time. If she doesn't deliver by Christmas time, my prediction is she'll be out in the new year. And the new deputy director, co-depity director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, Attorney General of Missouri,

former Attorney General of Missouri, he will be the new DOJ director, Attorney General, if Pam doesn't take action. Personally, I was skeptical from the get-go and I remain skeptical of her ability to deliver. Robert, Javier Millet, depended to be like Trump to get elected, then smuggled America's Argentina's gold reserves to the UK, increasing globalist leverage.

He's clearly in some, you know, he got the double-digit loss in some recent elections, and that has sunk the Argentinian peso. Now, Belay is through Musk and others, and Musk and Trump got back together at the, as mentioned, one of the super chats at the memorial. Musk was also shocked and horrified. It was like all of his worst nightmares. and seeing Charlie Kirk assassinated. And Charlie was unique for those people that don't know.

He was like, we used to call him the populist diplomat because he would manage to keep everybody happy. It didn't matter who you were on that ideological side. He would work together to bring people together. So the, but yeah, yeah, so I agree with that. Correction, Candace did not say that Israel killed Charlie. She said that the current info is not adding up. Yeah, I take her number of statements the other way.

I mean, here's a problem. I had a friend of mine that was at, the Charlie Kirk event. He was someone who suffered a horrible accident a few years ago, so he has like an artificial arm and a part of his arm and whatnot. Can I, you know, the, so he, you know, he looks a little unusual. He was video cameraing things, things like that and had a bunch of video equipment. Candice libeled him right out of the gate and suggested he had connection to the murder when he did. Nothing at all. I mean, this is who Candace is. I'm sorry. I'm done with her. So I understand other people are strong supporters, strong believers.

you know, good, good luck with that. I just think Candice, if you are skeptical of what Israel is doing, Candace hurts your cause. It doesn't help your cause because people here in the U.S. increasingly, you're interpreting her statement says, okay, if there's any question, the Jews did it. That's what Candice will say. And she's gaining their reputation, frankly, deservedly.

While with Trump giving the green light to shoot down the Russian jet over NATO states, how close are we to nuclear Armageddon, no longer a matter of if but when? my assumption is that Trump and Putin have such a relationship that we're not at that risk. But, you know, this is why the Ukrainian conflict concerns me. This is why I want to see a new Star Treaty. This is why I think the idea of a European architecture. I don't know. The Russians interpreted Trump is sincerely intended on that.

We haven't seen much from the U.S. on that, but at least by implication, that defense report that said we're going to be shifting away from not only China, but Europe, is an indicator that there is some merit to their support. So hopefully we don't let any of these red flares break us out in nuclear war. And I think Trump and Putin are sharp and savvy enough to keep us out of that. Right. Two more. Two more, Robert, and we will sign off.

Robert, what happens when President Trump finds out Antifa is largely funded and run US NGOs and Trump's CIA? Also, what if Trump finds out Soros has been CIA adjacent since the Cold War? He has started calling out Soros directly. So I hope that that shows progress. Now, Bill Gates, there's some other people I'd like to be on there. Bill Gates was hanging out in the White House. Wasn't a big fan of that.

So we'll see how all that proceeds. But yeah, I'm curious about this as well. And then do the feds try to keep a lid on things that might be embarrassing to prior administrations? I hope not. I mean, that's why I hope Tulsi Gabbard keeps digging. She's looking at disclosing what happened with COVID, what happened with the elections, what happened in a whole bunch of other issues of the long litany of deep state crimes. and let's hope that they pursue all the evidence where it leads,

and I have no doubt there will be some form of both Soros ties and Intel ties to how the organizations were created, funded, and supported that led to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. All right, final question from Rumble by Itsy-Bitzy Spider. Robert, how do you respond to the assertion that the United States is a Christian nation? The Constitution was written for a God-centered society, specifically Christianity. Without God, we fail. I see, I mean, our founders were deist, so they didn't have a strict doctrinal interpretation for the most part of how you know God.

I think the biggest, what they meant by a Christian nation was the idea that we are all equal and that we get that equality from God, that God gave us all souls. That was a radical revolutionary break. In other words, the government wasn't legitimated because the government, because God happened to pick this one family to lead us for the next 600 years. Instead, the government was only legitimate because we agreed to it because we matter equally. I mean, I've always said slavery's abolition was on the clock the moment the American Revolution went forward. Because once you say all men are created equal, sooner or later, all men have got to be treated equal. And that's how I see. So I don't think that the founders believe that you had to all be of the same doctrinal faith.

Indeed, most of our founder generations who came to America because they dissented. from whatever the institutional religion was in their local region and country. So that doctrinal purity was not what they were looking for or calling for. What they was is understanding the best of the Christian tradition, celebrating the equality of humanity as all of us having souls and God loving us all. And that empowered us. The only legitimate government is a government that recognizes and respects and originates from that. And that's why Charlie Kirk understood this brilliantly well.

And that's why his approach was always one, everybody can be redeemed. Everybody can be rescued. Everybody can be saved. And the best of the American Republic is free speech, free thought, free ideas, family, marriage, community, country, and usually in that order with God at the top of it. And the way he led his life is the example he would get. Charlie didn't want any kind of doctrinal control over who gets office or anything like that. So the idea of a Christian nation was the best ideals of Christianity being represented in a tolerant, diverse pluralistic society that said everybody is good because God made every one of us. All right. So me and Alexander, we will answer the remaining super chat questions in a dedicated

video, but there's one question here, an additional question, which I think only you can answer, Robert. Brown University economist Mark Blythe can recover an economy without subjecting regular people to crippling austerity. Should Trump replace Soto, CIA Besson, with Blythe? So, you know, Besson had prior Soros ties. He's mostly on board with Trump's political agenda, and he cut ties with Soros a few years ago. And that was more in the financial space than the political space. There's all kinds of people that work with Soros in the financial space. They don't necessarily share his politics.

But Trump is not, Trump is anti-austerity across the port. So there's nothing about Trump that will ever be pro-austerity. To the discomfort of some of his libertarian and Austrian economic. supporters who would like the debt and the deficit to be more of a focus. That just isn't in Trump's DNA. So don't ever expect massive cuts from Trump. It ain't ever happened. All right.

We will end it there. We've got over two hours, two hours and ten minutes with the great Robert Barnes. Robert, where can people follow your work? Yes. So you want all the law politics, geopolitics, great community, very active community, come up with cool and fun memes. Go to Vibabarnslaw.

dot locals.com. If you want to get the election market predictions and want to have any sort of we've had a lot of success wagering on elections all around the world, that's at sportspicks.locals.com. And for any of the updates on legal information in the United States about political freedom, medical freedom,

food freedom, financial freedom, then that's at 1776 law center.com. And don't forget, you know, we're only second to the durand. dot locals.com and all the great Duran merch that I got most of it sitting in a bag ready to ship. So the, oh, that's a cool. I love all of them. It's black. So there we go.

Perfect. Never forget that. The fantastic work you guys continue to do. Thank you very much, Robert. And all those links are in the description box down below and I will add them as a pin comment. Thank you once again to Robert Barnes for joining us on this live screen. Thank you to everyone that watched us. and thank you to our moderators.

We will see everyone tomorrow. Take care. Take care.