The Duran Podcast - Deep State in control w/ Mel K (Live)

Episode Date: October 28, 2025

Deep State in control w/ Mel K (Live)

All right, we are live with Alexander Mercuris in London. And today we are joined once again on the Duran with the fantastic Mel K from the Mel K show. How are you doing today? And where can people find you? Oh, I am doing great. People can find me. I have a daily show at noon, Eastern time every day on Rumble. I have great interviews over the weekend.

And I am everywhere except for still battling YouTube. But you can find me on X and most platforms. Rumble is my home, though. All right. Definitely, definitely look for Mel K show on Rumble. And I follow Mel K on Twitter or X, as the cool kids call it nowadays. And let's say a quick hello to everyone that is watching us, Rod Rockfin on Odyssey on Rumble and YouTube and our locals community,

the durand.com. A big shout out to our moderators as well. Oh, cool. Alexander Mel Kay, let's talk about the deep state. We got a lot of ground to cover, so let's just jump right into it. Indeed, let's indeed talk about the deep state. It's a topic that we hear a great deal about today. It's an expression that people only started to use, I think, relatively recently,

during Trump's first term. But of course, I who was born in the 1960s just before the assassination of president, President Kennedy, even in the 1960s as a child, I can remember people talking about a kind of permanent government that existed, mostly in the United States, but which has its, if you like, it's subsidiaries in overseas and deciduaries in other places. Or maybe that's where the headquarters are, maybe somewhere in Europe and the subsidiaries are in the US. I sometimes wonder, I'm living in London, whether it might be here, because we also probably have. a deep state too, perhaps an even older one, than you do in the United States. But anyway,

it is something which is very contrary, and this is a thing to say, very contrary and very strongly warned against by the founders of the American Republic. I mean, they would have regarded the existence of such a thing as absolutely horrifying and completely contrary to the Republican concept that they were trying to create in the United States. There is no doubt at all that it exists. Anybody who thinks it doesn't is deluding themselves. If somebody tells you that it doesn't exist, we'll be very careful about who they are. That's the first thing to say. Now, nobody better, I think, to talk about this enormous but very important subject than Mel Kay. It is the second time we have her. We should have had her on our programs long ago.

I massively enjoyed the previous programme that we did. And I'm very much looking forward to this one, even though this is a rather dark subject in some ways. But nobody else can cast light on it, I think, and talk about it as well and as interestingly as Melkamp. And of course, as I understand it, you are in the throes of a great deal of research and about this, and you're going to be writing about this fairly soon, or maybe you already are.

So, Mel, with that, let's go straight in. What is the deep state? Does it exist? I'm sure it does. I'm sure we'll agree that it does. But what is it exactly? It's a word people use an awful lot, expression people use, an awful lot. But what is it, in fact?

Well, in my opinion, it's evolved quite a bit. I believe the deep state was already in play before World War II. Certainly when the Federal Reserve started in America, in my opinion, I don't think that the Crown really accepted the idea that there was a American revolution and instead redoubled their efforts to come through and infiltrate America, as JFK called infiltration instead of invasion through the banking industry. And of course, that's global. And from what I can see, that was the beginning.

but the real damage was done. I believe the betrayal of nation states, particularly ours, both of ours, was in the period after World War II between 1944 and 1954. It seems to me that a bunch of people, while our families and friends and relatives were dying on the battlefields of Europe, there were a whole bunch of bankers and lawyers and international moguls of industry meeting, regularly in Switzerland, where Alan Dulles happened to be based during World War II, and he was working quite a bit with something I believe that everyone on America should be asking about, which is the Bank of International Settlements. And when I look at what's going on and how this

really evolved in my work now, what it seems is that during World War II, now most people know at this point, if you haven't read Anthony Sutton's books or any of the books, about the financial system prior to World War II. A lot of it was one foot in Wall Street and one foot in the city of London and another, you may be a hand over there in Germany. So a lot that was happening to rearm. Remember, you know, Germany wasn't supposed to rearm

and rebuild their military and everything else after World War I. And the first fraud was that the Bank of International Settlements would be the Bank for reparations for Germany, need to pay. They had this Young's plan and the Dawes plan and all this stuff. So they established the Bank of International Settlements under that idea of paying reparations. But what happened instead, from what I can see, is that particularly industries like the Rockefeller Standard Oil, Ford, IBM, a lot of different companies in that same realm, Wall Street firms were,

opening subsidiaries in Germany during the time between World War I and World War II, or at least refueling them. J.P. Morgan sent money there. I believe many people, particularly lawyers from Wall Street, because both Dulles brothers were Wall Street lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell, were involved in helping to build the Hitler's machine straight out of the financial system. And what I see has happened is that what we have now say the global public-private partnership that stands above us as a kind of parent company front group for the international banking cartel is still carrying on the same way where they do not look at nation states as relevant. They don't look at boundaries or borders as relevant. National sovereignty to this

group of people is a myth. It is something that they let the people believe. And this was all basically set up. Now, a lot of people that were in Wall Street seem to have backed Hitler in terms of even siding with them. We all know that the Nazis had a big parade at Madison Square Garden, you know, when they were coming up and everything. And I do believe that by 1944, there was already a plan to get all the billions and billions and billions of dollars from the 60 million people that were affected by World War II out of Germany through rat lines, be it Italy, Argentina, elsewhere. And I think a lot of that money came into America under the guise of shell companies

or front companies. We know that obviously standard oil was very involved with IG Farben during the war. We know that President Bush, his, father, Preston Bush, was called out for doing banking with Nazis. We know that Alan Dulles was in Bern, Switzerland, at the same time. The guy that was running the Bank of International Settlements, his name is McKittrick, also an American. I believe that they were setting up this framework that is still protected by something called the International Organization Immunity Act of 1945 to create a global infrastructure.

They wanted that after World War I. And I believe that a lot of the reasoning for going into World War II was more about consolidating power. And the world order that George H.W. Bush announced to the world when he became president, he left out financial. So what I believe is that that Bank of International settlements, now the two players with Dolis and the Dolis brothers and McKittrick were Sharp, who was the head of the Nazi bank, the Reich Bank, and a guy named Norman, who is the head of the city of London, the Bank of England. And what they were doing at this time was encourage everyone in the ally states, ally countries to put their gold in the bank of international settlements. And then they would trade back and forth having to do with reparations and this and that. But as the Nazis gained

power, Sharf, who is the, you know, he's also on the board of Bank of International Settlements. So the Bank of International Settlements, we have to understand, had people from every country, basically, in Europe, but also the U.S. did not join it at first. It was instead the private banks of Morgan and the Bank of New York and the Bank of Chicago joined as kind of the American wing there. And what it appears happened is that they set up an international framework to basically have a financial world system that would have its tentacles in every country controlling them from above through the financial systems. And of course, after that, you know, they came with the IMF and the World Bank and all of this stuff. at the same time in tandem, they're coming in with their second iteration of the League of Nations, the United Nations, which also has this immunity that they've all decided upon in 1945,

that 63 banks underneath the Bank of International Settlements, and 76 organizations under the United Nations all got this kind of immunity on the world stage, no matter where they were, that they still have, and you can look up, it's still in effect. meaning that they could not be audited, they could not be investigated, the people that are in there could not be stopped accustoms. They basically were opaque to anyone outside. And again, the Bank of International settlements would call themselves non-political, but everything they were doing was affecting everyone else,

every country's politics, because they were manipulating from the top. And if you start there, then you start to see out of that came. what I believe is really the worst thing that happened to the United States was now remember both Dolos brothers are lawyers because trick was a lawyer so these guys are all in Switzerland and to me what it looks like is not only were they funneling money out of Germany after Hitler surrendered so to speak surrendered but that they plan to keep it going this this war for profit machine that they created, particularly during World War II, with the industries. And from that point on, the birth of the CIA is in question because my question at this point during

my research is, does the CIA actually work for the international banking cartel rather than for our country or any country? And is MI6, the CIA and possibly maybe the Mossad, are they all one because what I see now is the characters that were in Switzerland, that were around the Bank of International Settlements, they all were talking about kind of what is in Carol Quigley's tragedy and hope, which is basically these dumb, you know, peasants, humans, because we know later Rockefeller and them came up with the Club of Rome and limits of growth and everything is the human's fault. And of course, these greater beings that are part of the superclass, as they call themselves, had to organize on a global stage to basically, I think, push the world into

some kind of global socialism, to some extent that it had a technocratic edge by saying this is all about fair international trade, fair international finance, when it really looks like, no, it's really about deceiving nation states into believing that they are sovereign, when really they can't do anything without the international banks being involved. So, I mean, where I see it now is I think that the CIA, from its inception, was never an intelligence agency to protect the United States of America. And rather, when the Dolos brothers came back, John Foster Dolis State Department and his brother, CIA, that from that point on, I think the State Department of the United States, the CIA and then you can add of course their money bags over at USAID became partners of this charade of of sovereign nation states while they kind of decided kind of like a parent company for the

last you know since they've gotten away with it that they will leave the illusion while they instead meet at conferences and you know Bilderberg was probably the first one you know and then you look at the birth of NATO and all of that. And then a very ugly picture for the United States is what McCloy and Dolis did during Nuremberg, which was go in and pull a lot of scientists, a lot of bankers, a lot of economists, a lot of people out of Nuremberg, some that were sentenced to death because a lot of people were aware that IG Farben and Standard Oil, which is the Rockefellers, were doing all kinds of business during World War II. They were, you know, the whole thing and really what it appears is that from that point on,

the Bilderberg meeting, Davos, the cop conferences, you know, any number of the world government meetings, all this stuff is really what they consider the world government that is truly running the financial system, the endless wars for profit. I believe these people planned World War III before World War II was over. And then a lot of people don't realize. You know, we were all told that this Marshall plan was going to refund, you know, and rebuild Europe. Instead, it built the EU and the European euro. And also helped fund with the help of Kissinger and Bersensky and the whole Rockefeller crew helped build the World Economic Forum.

So when you look at it and you take a step back, you say, oh, so they were putting together a global structure of control based on paying for both sides of war, a ground game for basically regime changed for anyone that questioned their control. And I believe that we've been in this cycle ever since. And like you said, if you look at George Washington's farewell address, that was what was meant to be America, a neutral nation. We were neutral. And frankly, I think Wilson probably worked for the crown rather than the United States. States of America. But from that point on of the Federal Reserve, and then I think that the whole plan and the game and the deep state was all about protecting the city of London, Wall Street,

and frankly, the military industrial complex, which they realized was the biggest profit-making machine on the planet. And so, like I say, I don't think the deep state is American. Frankly, I don't think it's anything. I think it's more like how Orwell described. this state in 1984. In 1984 Orwell kind of made fun of the Nazis and the Chinese and their way of doing it and said that basically the state in that book had no allegiance or alliance to any flag, any nation, any people, any country, any culture, anything.

It was power for power's sake. And basically, if you were in that club, then you would be rewarded. And then, of course, we know that the universities, particularly, I believe, the London School of Economics, Oxford and Cambridge as well. But then all the Ivy League schools and then University of Chicago and some of these other places all, I believe, started down the path of getting the children, our youth over years, indoctrinated into a kind of accepting a global Marxist, totalitarian technocratic system that we could do nothing about and so we've continued down this path where you know lobbying is somehow legal which is just legalized bribery um everyone's getting the project for a new american century then decided that they were going to militarize the world you know russia fought with us in world war two as did china but dulles and trueres and

Churchill and a bunch of people were like, wait a minute. Now we have to fight the cold war against communism. And what I believe at this point, particularly for the people of the United States of America, when you look at our debt, I am pretty convinced that this international banking cartel and their global public private partnership, which started before World War II, this conglomerate of multinational corporations that then have different names in different countries. But at the board level, they're all the same people. what I believe is that they've gotten to a place where that is what they're trying to protect and by any means necessary, be it by pulling a coup in the United States of America in 2016, overthrowing a duly elected president, because we have to remember that was not a U.S. operation that happened to be a five-eyes operation. And you always have to ask yourself, what is that about? And even the expansion of NATO, again, Gorbachev was promised,

by James Baker, we're not going to expand NATO after the end of the war. George Soros comes out in 93 with the Open Society Declaration of a NATO world order. Two years later, Bill Clinton's expanding NATO for no reason. So to me, what I'm seeing is also an endless desire to use Bernays and propaganda and public opinion to get the people of our countries to support endless war, which at the end of the day is about profit in reconstruction after the destruction. And that's where I feel in my own book, Americans Anonymous, which is a 12-step program based on AA, I basically say America, but frankly, also the UK, and I think most of Europe are as sick as our secrets because our true history has been lied to. We've been lied to about it and taught for decades, I believe, not to look above, not to, not that we're all fighting each other on the streets. We're all doing this. where they open our borders.

They're not opening the border of China. They're not opening the border of India. They're only of the Western Atlantic nations. So, you know, to me at this point, the deep state defined, I believe, is a, like I said, it is a global public-private partnership in cahoots with an international banking system that bases everything on swaying public opinion to benefit them to continue down the road. of basically not just war for profit, but also everything that they've done, the global warming, the global pandemic, the global everything. It all comes back to this 1944-1945 international

Immunities Act for these organizations and banks that is still in place, and I believe still functions above all of our governments. Well, first of all, thank you. There's a huge amount. go through there. But let me just make a few quick observations and we can take them further. First of all, either you're absolutely right to look at finance. I think finance is where it begins. And I'm going to say this. I think it begins here in London. American capital and British capital tended to meet in London. But 20 minutes from where I live, J.P. Morgan's house in London was. He spent half his time in London. He spent about six months of the

year in London. In New York, if you go to his house in New York, which is still there, it's relatively small. His house in London is enormous. It is huge. It is many, many times bigger. And that perhaps tells you where the real focus of his time was. And of course, it wasn't just Morgan. It was many, many others. There was this complete integration which began before the First World War between British and American finance capital. If you know, perhaps this is something that is discussed much more in Britain, I believe, than it is in the United States itself. And of course, there was also a lot of cultural interaction that came connected to it as well. This is the time when all kinds of American intellectuals who were sort of connected to this world were coming here to London.

there's the house of one of them, very important house, by the way, where a lot of these people used to meet near Oxford is currently up for sale, just to say. So this is, I believe, where it begins. And it does evolve into a conception of some kind of technocratic government outside the political system, very different from republicanism, such as exists in the United States, but something, as you absolutely correctly say,

which is not that far removed from the political culture that had evolved in Britain in the late 19th century where we were starting to get professional civil service and that kind of thing starts to develop. And that brings me to my next point. Anybody who ever tells you the technocratic government is objective apolitical. government simply doesn't know what they're talking about i have lived under so-called technocratic

governments um i should know technocratic government is profoundly political and inherently anti-democratic and inherently authoritarian and oligarchic the government of the soviet union was in some respects in most respects a technocratic government He was actually proud of the fact they were quite open about it. Yes. The governments that we see starting to mushroom in all sorts of places, in Europe, in the West, which call themselves technocratic, are that too. And you can see also starting from around the 1920s, 30s, 40s,

you start to see a proliferation of ideas about technocracy beginning to develop. You see the development in front. for example, of the Grand Ecole, which were intended to train technocrats, to run things. And it's essentially the civil service that for a long time basically operated and governed France. You lived in France, as I have done. You know all about this too. Remember, France was also a country with a Republican tradition. And you're absolutely right to identify some of the people involved.

Montague Norman, the governor of... the Bank of England, still a very, very, I would say, in famous person, even in British history, a very close friend of Chalmershacht, who you were referring to, the president of the Reich Bank. And the president, Schacht, was somebody who, through Norman, had great deal of connections to the United States, to finance capital in the United States. And it was he who set up the whole system in the early 1930s that financed German rearmament. I mean, he is a most interesting man, extremely clever man as well. And out of that world, again, you get the same people who eventually come together and create

the Bretton Woods institutions that developed in 1944. Again, I think in Britain, this is all much, much more carefully and thoroughly studied than it is in the United States itself. But it is, again, very interesting how the, because again, to say this once more, none of this is contrary to European political, cultural traditions. I mean, we've never had a Republican tradition in Britain, but it's never existed. In France, it has, to a certain extent, in Germany, obviously, before the Second World War, absolutely not. The United States had a Republican tradition, which was created in repudiation of what existed in Europe.

What happened between about 1890 and 1944-45 is that the whole European style of things somehow got transferred to the United States? of Frank? Yeah, during the, well, that would be during the Federal Reserve, but at the same time, we have to remember that the Rhodes Scholars and certainly Frankfurt School, I mean, a lot of this stuff was out there, but then we had the twin sisters

of the Council of Foreign Relations and Chatham House. And of course, the head of Council of Foreign Relations for many years was John Foster Dulles. And I believe McCloy was another guy that was involved and Alan Dulles also. So to me, the Shrach, however you say his name and Norman,

were very close with the Dulles brothers. And what it seems also is that Kissinger, as well, as you said Morgan too, said that he spent most his time and most of his energy in the UK as well. So we have to remember that the architects, I believe, in America, of how we got here include not just Kissinger and Brzezinski and the Rockefellers,

but also the kind of other thing that came out of that period of time was these global NGOs, particularly in America. They have been investigated over and over since the 30s, or even before then. The Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation have been accused many times in our history of circumventing and subverting the will of the people of our country. And these are global institutions. And as everyone knows, the Rockefeller's paid for the land on which the United Nations is. And right down the street is the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller University.

And then when you look at their money, particularly even if you go today on Rockefeller philanthropy partners, you're going to find everything globalist. you're going to find. And again, I believe, this is what I believe at this point in my work, is that I think that at the end of World War II, not only were they already planning for a third world war or what I call a financial world order that they were creating while we were, while our ancestors are dying on battlefields all over the world, but they also, I believe, created an infrastructure for protecting themselves, a global intelligence operation as well that isn't separated by water or by, you know, sovereign nations or borders. I really do believe

that they pulled it off and they wanted to for the League of Nations. I mean, the book that's the most disturbing to read about this as an American is tragedy and hope because quickly just lays it out that they were never going to allow the people of the country to run the country themselves. Of course, as Rockefeller said in his own memoir, surely it's preferable for a banking class and intellectuals to run the world. It sounds very similar to what Larry Thinks says at the perch at the top of the World Economic Forum right now, which is why I get in a lot of trouble when I say I'm not really sure that the Nazis lost World War II.

Germany did, but I don't think the Nazis did. And then it's like, well, what are the Nazis? I mean, they've been defined differently. But, you know, I'm at a place where I really believe that we have been greatly deceived. And then the murder of JFK, it ended up being, you know, a decades-long cover-up to protect these same people. What would you say to those people,

and I to some extent and one, who would say that the Kennedy assassination, is in fact the decisive moment when the fact that it was never cleared up, that it was never sorted out, that the way in which the government basically changed and foreign policy changed. And no president since Kennedy has been like presidents were before Kennedy and as Kennedy himself was, that the assassination of Kennedy was perhaps the decisive moment in which you could say that the deep state basically consolidated its position, entrenched

its power in the United States. Because certainly, I mean, we didn't necessarily use that expression in the 60s. I never, I don't remember, because I was a child then, but I don't remember people using the expression of deep state then. But everybody did feel, and this went on for many years after Kennedy was assassinated, that this was a major event and a massive turning point. not just in the United States, but globally as well. Yeah, I think that when you look at all the facts of the Kennedy situation and what he was doing at the time, particularly in Africa or with he wanted a nuclear weapons treaty, he wanted to stop that. He was a big threat to the military industrial complex.

And at the same time, that was also, see, I think Operation Paperclip is much bigger than people think, What we're learning, I don't know if you guys know, right now Chuck Grassley is working with Malay of Argentina to try to uncover more of the stuff from Switzerland, particularly post-World War II. I mean, 60 million people had their entire lives destroyed, all of their belongings gone, everything perished, all this gold and everything disappears. It somehow resurfaces. And, you know, to me, what we are looking at and what I think even he's looking at is, is how big was the infiltration and not just here around the world? Because as many people know, Dolis put a very powerful Nazi in charge of West Germany intelligence. Gallen, I think is his name.

But we had a lot of that here as well. And I think JFK and his brother were starting to really, I think it was basically brothers versus brothers that would be dullest brothers versus jfk and rfk and uh looking at the future of america very differently one i think went the right went the path that they wanted which then led to the project for a new american century and the war on terror and all that where the other one the other two we're looking at well how can we make peace how can we make africa thrive how can we be fair to south America. And then there's a lot of pieces of that that go back to that both Dulles brothers were Wall Street lawyers because they had the United Fruit Company and in, you know, in South America and

they had all this stuff happening. And I think JFK was trying to figure a lot of that out. He didn't want to keep Dulles in the beginning. And frankly, what happened was, I think, part psychological operation on the planet, certainly on America, because people that I talked to that were, I have a good friend who is one of the only survivors of MK Ultra still alive, but a lot of people believe that the way that they went about murdering JFK was just as much to traumatize the nation into basically being suggestible to whatever was offered by the government after the murder of JFK, that our country was in mourning and a similar situation after 9-11, and that the orchestration of the murder of JFK was more, um, he demoralized.

dehumanizing, weakening of the United States of America, the people of this country to allow them to continue down the path that they were on, which was going into Vietnam and refueling the international military industrial complex war machine. And when I look at that too, what happened in America, sadly enough, and I think we're going to see play out over the next several months because I do think we're going to see some justice in America for some of these crimes. It appears at that point, the Warren Commission, which of course included Dulles and a lot of other people that shouldn't have been on it. They said this is what happened and shut the book and they created the whole conspiracy theorist thing if you questioned it. And frankly, it appears

to me that every single intelligence operation operative after that, be it the FBI, CIA, NSA, whatever, was a cover-up operation, one after another, under the same CIA doctrine, which the other side of it is the National Security Act, which also includes the idea of hiding things from the public for reasons of national security. Well, what I'm learning is that if the government says they are hiding something because reasons of national security, it's a good chance the government is the criminal in the situation. And I think that they started in many years after that, protecting themselves over the people of this country or any country, and the intelligence agencies that respond from Dulles's CIA were basically rogue. And the State Department of the United States

and the CIA became kind of a free agent running a separate foreign policy that had nothing to do with who. That's why I think every president that's come in until Trump maybe couldn't change anything on the global stage because it wasn't in the president's hands. It was above the president. And I think we're at the place now where we can see it. But JFK's murder certainly started off a deception on the American people that has never stopped because everyone that's gone in there had access to a lot of information that never came out by design. What about the military industrial complex? Because this is something people always talk about. President Eisenhower warned people against it in his farewell.

address to the American people. Again, it is obviously a very, very powerful force in the United States. It has a close symbiotic relationship with the United States government. Without the United States government, it could not exist. The United States government is its customer. It has captured its own customer in a strange kind of way. It's very strange because it's the American government, it's the Defense Department that puts in the orders, and yet it's the military industrial complex that sometimes tells the Defense Department through Congress and the administration what it should buy. What exact role does it have, and how does it fit into all of this? Well, what I think, at least if you go back to the end of World War II and you look at the shift

of turning on Russia and China as the bad guys. They needed a new, it just in the writings and readings I've been doing about Alan Dolis in particular, they realized that the war for profit model had to be, they needed public support to continue down that path. And what it appears to me is that they create through propaganda, through Nazi level, propaganda because a lot of the propagandists actually came from them into America. But what it seems is that it's an endless creation of reasons to go to war for profit. So when I look at it, I see that at the end of World War I, they shifted to the Cold War or the war on communism.

Again, we then had a war on terror. Both of these things, I think, are lawfare. created because they have no enemy defined. You could change the enemy at any time. Here it's Russia, next it's Vietnam, next it's Korea. We're getting the communists, you know, and it's like, no, the communists are in our country, like doing that. And then the other part that is really sad, and I think is what Eisenhower warned about, which bothers me the most, is that all of our military industrial contractors who get all this money, like people get upset that we're sending money to Ukraine or we're sending money to Israel. All that money is going back to the military industrial complex, it appears, and the lobbyists who continue down the path and the propagandists

who convinced the public to support wars that have nothing to do with, you know, freedom or democracy or any of this BS. But that our military industrial complex companies are traded on Wall Street is a real problem. And if you look at it, it's still this way to this day. And, you know, We're given $800 billion in defense budget every year. A lot of that, a lot of that defense budget cannot be accounted for. They keep failing every year for 10 years. A audit. And that is because, like I said, I think that there has been two different foreign policies,

one for the international banks, Wall Street, City of London, Brussels, and run out of maybe USAID, State Department and partners around the world. and one that we see. So for me, what I see it as is that just like the expanding of NATO or NATO still, they have to constantly create in the public opinion a reason to get the public behind going to war. So, you know, you look at the project, if your audience doesn't know about the project for a new American century, that was Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, all the people that ended up profiting off of the war on terror happened to write this full spectrum dominance military plan for the United States

that the people of this country, I don't think, would ever have backed if it was explained. And instead, if you look at it, the project for a new American century, which are still the neocons, I believe pushing towards World War III, a lot of them, or they were groomed by them at the Kennedy School or at the young global leaders or whatever, is still the same model. It is still a model of war for profit. and consolidation under the guise of reconstruction. And I firmly believe that World War III was planned long ago.

What's going on in Ukraine and Russia and the EU was not new. If you read Zig Brzynski's book, the Grand Chessboard, or any of those things, you're going to see that it appears, particularly when Donald Trump went into office and the Five Eyes Nations pulled the coup to not allow him be present. they continued down the path across the street, basically, West Exec Advisors, run by Anthony Blinken, militarizing and weaponizing Ukraine. You know, you had 12 CIA, you know, offices there. You had the bio-weapons labs that Victoria Newlin admitted. Frankly, in 2015, Victoria Newlin gave a speech to the United States about the billions and billions of dollars we were pouring

into run Ukraine after Obama overthrew, of course, I believe that, you know, this is a five-eyes operation in some respects, but overthrew the duly elected government in Ukraine with the help of public opinion being, you know, paid for through USAID and National Dowment for democracy on the ground. Next thing you know, George Soros is popping up there with his NATO world order. In comes Clinton. And next thing you know, we're on the way to World War III surrounding Russia with NATO. And again, I believe NATO should be ended, but worse than that, I don't, I believe that they continue to create reasons to continue having wars that don't affect the people that are deciding to go to war. They only affect our children and our countries. And that's where I think we are right now,

is that the people of all of our nations have to decide what kind of future they want. Do they want to continue down this technocratic totalitarian post, I believe, World War III Agenda 2030, or do they want to stand up in their own nations and take back their sovereignty? Mel, I have one very, very last question. It basically goes back to the origins. I mean, if you go, you took a time machine and went back to the United States of the 1920s. I mean, you'd have found a very different place. I mean, I don't, not talking about technologists and things with that guy.

I mean, it was a profoundly civilian society, for one thing. It barely had intelligence agencies in those days. It's so it's foreign service. I once remember, I looked at what the numbers were of the State Department, the number of people employed by the State Department in the 1920s. It was tiny. Henry Stimson, who was in charge of the Department of War, closed down the cryptography service, you know,

the people who were eliciting in or trying to decipher other people's documents. He said, gentlemen, don't read other people's mail. I mean, that was the culture of the United States at that time. Now, all of this has changed. We have the structure that we have today. Can it be defeated, given how long it's been in control and how powerful and big it's become? I mean, is it possible to roll it back?

I think the most important thing is, honestly, the level of psychological warfare that the entire world has been subjected to, particularly, I believe, out of NATO. But that is our biggest hurdle, is that people, I believe, in general, have been betrayed. Like I said, I believe that our debt is basically that the American taxpayer, the people that actually work in this country that have had their country looted. all of our industries sent away, basically turned into just a consumer society and a weapons manufacturing hub at this point. I believe that our debt is because the United States taxpayer

basically has paid for the entire Cold War, the entire war on terror, the entire globalist operation that kicked off it with the Club of Rome, of course another Rockefeller group, and then went on steroids under Bill Clinton with global warming and then global this and global that. and the whole concept that we, you know, all these global issues have to be solved by a global governance model that cannot allow nation states to make their own choices because why would you do that? So for me, at this point, it's a lot about the miseducation of our children for the last 30 years. And even more, the capture of technology kind of is making it look like, unfortunately, that the infrastructure is already built for a global public infrastructure, which is the thing that we should all be pushing back

on, be it the global digital ID, digital wallet. This all came from the 70s. None of this is new. Frankly, there's an interview. I believe it was Anthony Russo, was a documentary filmmaker and made a documentary or an interview with the Rockefellers at the time saying that the end goal was to have everyone on basically track and trace surveillance on the global stage. More important to control all natural resources.

sources than actual human beings, but to find a way to what they call, what they out loud say now, to own nothing and be happy. I also, I do believe that it's able to be defeated because in my work, I believe we're talking about maybe six, seven thousand people that are actually privy to what is going on on a global scale that it is all connected. And then, you know, but your country and my country have been, it has been one psychological operation after another psychological operation. And never forget the head during the most crucial years of the psychological warfare

department in the United States was a man named Colonel Aquino, who was a vowed Satanist, ran M.K. Ultra under Dolis. And then we had Gottlieb and all these other things. And then, you know, you have the whole international pandemic that came up. Well, that reminds me quite a bit of the relationship between IG Farbin and standard oil in the 30s. So, I mean, to me, I think we're still dealing with a lot of the same tentacles that if exposed, and they're exposing themselves, they have, they really messed up with the pandemic, in my opinion.

They overplayed their hand. And I don't think they raised their children to be as strategic and didactic and backroom as they themselves were groomed by, you know, Rhodes or whoever else along the way, the Fabian Society, the Pilgrims, whatever you want to say, I do believe that they made a lot of strategic errors in the last five years in all of our countries. And like I said, I don't think any of these wars, not Israel, not Ukraine. I don't think that they're isolated. I don't think they're about what they got public opinion for. I think that this is still a international financial order that is desperately trying to keep control and find a way to extend to another.

other hundred years of debt slavery and IMF nonsense and World Bank and all that. I believe that that is what Trump is trying to dismantle, honestly, at this point. And, you know, it's not going to be easy, but I do believe it can be done. I actually agree. I've never known the people who are in control to be as insecure and as frightened as they are now. I mean, in London at least, you can see the signs of that every or around you. Mel, it's been, again, a massive pleasure to talk to you. If you can just stay a little while because I know Alex has some questions,

but thank you again for answering all my questions so fully and probably. Thank you. I happen to be writing a book, so it's all coming out in my head. You have time for 10, 15 minutes of questions? Of course. From viewers. I like the people. Awesome.

From Zareil. Hi Mel Kay. What's new on the Charlie Kirk front? Well, the truth is that it is causing, again, there are so many different psychological operations right now in the United States. It's hard to tell what's really going on by design. You know, it takes me back to the Hannah Wrent talking about the totalitarianism, you know, two-step, which is, you know, get the people to believe everything and nothing at the same time. time and then you can basically, you know, force them into something that they don't want,

like eyes wide open into the totalitarian technocratic goals. But as for Charlie Kirk, it really woke up the country, but at the same time, it has divided the right in this country pretty dramatically from what I can see. I see from a distance. I knew him. I think he was great. And, but what we have going on is a very dangerous situation because the division of those that supported Donald Trump when it comes to this topic is causing a lot of issues, both the, what is going on in Israel, the murder of Charlie Kirk, and, and pretty much what the exposure of, you know, this last 15, 20 years of Russia gate, you can call it. It's really spigate.

It's really the growth of the intelligence, unconstitutional, in my opinion, Patriot Act intelligence that has captured all of us. So, you know, there's a lot of things going on. I just pray for, you know, Charlie Kirk and his family, turning point was a great thing for young people. But what it has done, again, has been used to divide the supporters of Donald Trump into different camps, it seems. Mel Kay, where does Venezuela fit into this? Well, you got to go back, I think, to the CIA, first and foremost, and operations in South America, Colombia, Venezuela. A lot of the stuff I was talking about with the United Fruit and the Dulles brothers, the Rockefellers and their South America situations, which also had to do with JFK as well. And frankly, I think that Venezuela was captured long ago.

I do not think that it is in any, look at what's happened to it. It used to be the most wealthy country in the world, but I do believe a lot of this has to, I really believe that much of what is going on on a global scale is the dismantling of the international intelligence network that protects the international banking network. And again, the CIA was very active in those waters. I think it has a lot to do with that maritime path that passes by there, a lot with the drugs and trafficking of humans and weapons and all of that. And also there's a lot of suggestion that Venezuela has a lot to do with

manipulation of elections around the world as Chavez, as most people know, created a program that has been used over and over. A lot of people trace SmartMatic and others to Chavez and Venezuela. So I think multiple things are playing out. But what I can see happening is the very difficult, but I think worthy task of pulling the tentacles of the international global public private partnership and banking cartel out of all of these countries. And I'm hoping that, like you said earlier, George Washington, I think, said it best. But the United States was supposed to remain basically what they said Switzerland was, which is neutral. Switzerland was never neutral. It still isn't neutral. It's never been. It is the hub of globalism.

But the United States of America was supposed to remain neutral. And we are so far away from that right now. And frankly, the only way we get back to that is to be honest and dismantle what has undermined this nation's sovereignty in the form of infiltration all over the world of these international organizations. a lot of them fronts for the CIA and to acknowledge the history that we have been lied to about in our nation and stand up for that. That's what I think is going on in Venezuela. I think it's the unraveling of many decades

of manipulation, criminality, and abuse. From Red Panda Pi, did you see the Marjorie Taylor-Green? Did you see Marjorie Taylor-Green on Tucker? They listed Maga's five pillars for Trump's campaign but excused failures of Congress, like Medvedev posted. Are they deluded? Is the President of the United States even relevant regarding the deep state? Is the President of the United States relevant regarding the deep state?

I don't think he's working alone in terms of as the United States. At this point, I can't help believe that there is an international coalition that also, whether they are on paper or enemies or. our allies that knows that the international banking cartel and the international organization system that was set up in the aftermath of World War II is the root of most problems on planet Earth. And frankly, I think Donald Trump is relevant on the world stage for many reasons, mostly because he knows all of this.

You know, a lot of people don't realize that, you know, they can make fun of them or whatever else. But Donald Trump, his father, his uncle, first of all, was at MIT with Tesla. Second, he is a very well-read person in history. Also, Mara Lago has hosted world leaders for the last 35 years, including the most powerful people in the world. So I firmly believe that they're trying to dismantle the international banking cartel, IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, because none of them work for our countries. They work for an entity that is above our nations, and I believe that it's very clear to many people,

particularly with what they're doing right now in the EU with Russia and wanting to steal their sovereign funds and things like this. This is a desperate ploy. And for me, I believe that a lot of the people that have invested trillions upon trillions of dollars since the 2015 signing of Agenda 2030 by Barack Obama will do anything to make sure, sure that the globalist experiment works and where I believe that nation states that have leaders

that prefer to protect their borders, language, culture, history, and their people will be fighting back. And I think more and more countries will join that as the EU shows more and more of its true colors towards, unfortunately, what's looking a lot like a Fourth Reich. I think more and more people will start to say, we don't want that model of what the Third Reich was, a unified Europe without Russia that is running the world out of Brussels. And I mean, they can't do it anymore. And so instead, they're going to sink the entire West into chaos to make us on our knees, beg the UN or the international banks to bail us out. We're going to have to bail ourselves out. But I do believe, again, nobody in the United States has any power compared to what the

American people have if they would just use it. And that is on a local scale. And it's probably like that in all the Western countries, if the local people decided that it was up to them, literally, to save their country locally one town, one county at a time, we would see a lot of change. But as long as the people of our countries believe that the government is somehow going to change things, then we're all just playing along in an endless game of manipulation. And I do think that's happening in America, and I see it happening elsewhere all over the world, certainly. But we have to remember that, you know, there's decades here to unravel, and that's where I believe we are. But as far as Donald Trump, I think he's a beacon, at least

for those who still believe in America and the founding documents and what this was supposed to be, not what it became after 1912, 13. From Natalia, do you think that the rise of Bricks challenges the Deep State? Can the Deep State be defeated by Bricks? How can we? How can we, we, people of the U.S. and the EU, help Bricks to develop and defeat the deep states so we can also be free. I happen to believe that, and I always have. I also happen to believe that Trump would like to participate. What I actually believe is that they're redoing the financial world order and that it will likely be backed by hard assets rather than the nonsense since 1971. That's been a debt slavery model for the world. I don't know if it's bricks.

or if it's some kind of collaboration between, you know, the post-bricks, you know, America or whatever. But I do not believe that we are going to have a world that is not working together in cooperation to make a better planet going forward. And I do believe that the United States, again, it takes me back to the project for a new American century and those that created or implemented the Unconstitutional Patriot Act and everything that happened since. I really believe that it's the same thing. It really goes back to what is the direction that we want to go, a militarized planet or a planet where sovereign nations protect their people of their planet and make their countries each the best that they can be

because we certainly have enough money to do everything. There is enough money probably in that Bank of International settlements and all of the tentacles that is protected by them to have the entire continent of ever, Africa have clean water, electricity, internet, all of that, the whole concept of developing nations that never develop. You know, you look at something like, what's his name, confessions of an economic hitman or anything like that.

And you think, God, how terrible that we've allowed this to happen. So I think that there's a different financial world economy that is going to arise out of this. But they have to get rid of the tentacles and the people that protect that. first. All right. A couple more questions from Mark Hewitt. If any, what effect did FDR's death have? Well, you know, a lot of people still question FDR's death, and I think it had a big effect on America and the world. I do not believe that we would have gone the path of endless war for profit had he not died when he did. But in my opinion, I mean, again, we have a situation where it has been set up to have

constant class struggle, constant, you know, struggle between races, between gender. It just seems to me like after FDR and then in the years after that, that again and again, from inside we have been divided and divided and divided where I think at the time of FDR, America wasn't in pieces. We weren't, you know, sliced in all different directions. People looked at positive solutions for everyone and how can we, make that happen. And again, certainly after the murder of JFK, that never returned. All right. One more question from Chunky Monkey. Is it naive at this point to still believe in

Trump? He is a neocon and is helping the globalists undermine crypto. Oh, I don't think he's undermining crypto. Many people in this country would say the opposite, I think. But here's the thing about Donald Trump that we have to all kind of understand finally after all these years of manipulation and propaganda on both sides. The man is just a man. And the bottom line is Donald Trump running again gave the world and America particularly a chance to take back our countries ourselves. Donald Trump walked into something that is already built in my opinion. And I know people are upset about the, I've talked about it many times, the global public infrastructure. I certainly am disgusted that Larry Fink got promoted to the top of the World Economic Forum the same day that Trump finally, after all these years, gets to have a little detente with Russia, with Putin.

That happened the exact same day. I think that there is a financial war going on above our nations that doesn't include the people of our countries. And as far as Trump, I think a lot of war. what he has there was already built. I also think that what they've done to him, particularly the lawfare of the last five years, has made him more, and the two assassination attempts,

and there were many others, has made him more about, I think, wanting the American people to take back their country. I mean, he can only do so much. And he's like, you know, but the truth is, like I said, I believe that there's people all over the world

in Russia and China and India, in Africa that are on the same page of releasing this planet from this octopus of global control that was built post-World War II. And then we can start to decide after that. But as for Trump, I think Trump is giving us a chance to take back our countries. Because had Kamala Harris and whoever got in there, America would have been done. There is no chance America will survive because a lot of people don't know this. but when they had their big 75th anniversary at the United Nations and Black Rock was there,

and they relaunched the Clinton Global Initiative and they had the IMF and everyone was in New York City and they're doing all that. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris signed on to not only achieving Agenda 2030 by 2030, but leading the world in achieving it. And a lot of those executive orders that were signed by Autopin were the building of the international global, public, private partnership, global public infrastructure for full track and trace surveillance of all of us beyond borders, interoperable to technocracy. And they were all in on it. In fact, Klaus Schwab thanked then Vice President Joe Biden for being the leader in consolidating global governance. So we were in real danger. Trump coming back again was, you know,

I just think it was a respite for humanity to stop paying attention to Trump and stop. start paying attention to what's in your backyard because I believe all over your country and my country we have been infiltrated in every single way for the collapse of the West and it can be dismantled but not if we not if we keep saying I'm going to let somebody else run for city council I'm going to let somebody else run for school board well as it becomes more AI and more surveillance and more data you better want a seat on your city council you know you better You better want to know about, well, you know, what contracts your school district are going into. And that's where I think.

I just see the dismantling of the tentacles of the United Nations and the international banks as key for the entire planet to free itself. Mel Kay, thank you so much for answering questions from the viewers. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. And thank you again for joining us on the Duran. Once again, Mel Kay, where can people find your work? Okay, well, great. I have my website, the melkayshow.com. I have a lot of documents, I think people find interesting, including the NATO Cognitive Warfare document, which I think we are all being sciop endlessly. And it's all written in there, basically, on the melkayshow.com resource page. I have a great newsletter. I have a bookout called American's Anonymous, restoring power to the people, one citizen at a time, a recovery program for the American Patriots. And I also am. available wherever podcasts are,

except for I am not on Telegram and I am not on YouTube. Everywhere else, I am the Mel Kay Show and at X, I'm at Mel Kaye Show. I have those links in the description box down below and I will also add them as a pin comment as well. Mel Kay, thank you once again for joining us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, guys. Thank you. Take care. All right. Alexander. Yes, absolutely. you're all about all the various things. I mean, it really is going through American history. FDR, which we hardly ever talk about, actually. I should say I'm a great admirer FDR. I think it was an exceptional president. And I also think he left a very, very difficult legacy for the United States, which the United States has never really managed to get a grip on. And he created many of the structures and institutions.

that have morphed into the monster that we look at today. So an interesting and complex man, and perhaps someone we should talk about one day. Yeah, not many people talk about FDR nowadays. It's all about Churchill. I know. Everyone's a churchill. Strange.

Nope. Yeah. It's strange. Yeah. Let's get to some more questions. Alexander. From Susan, welcome to the Drand community. SW is a new member to the Duran community.

Bergett is also a new member to the Duran community, and so is Martin King. Welcome everybody to the Duran community. Matthew says the French deploying into Ukraine seems fairly inevitable now. They know that Trump can't do anything against the neocons. Big war inbound, question. Well, it's a good question. I mean, we know about this, or at least we've been told about this by the Russian intelligence service. They're telling us that this is actually being prepared and that Macron has put together 2,000 men,

mostly according to the, again, this is entirely Russian intelligence that we stress, and mostly people who have joined the Foreign Legion from Latin America. Well, we'll see. I think that the reality is that the NATO powers have had people on the ground in Ukraine for a very long time, many more than just 2000. The big question is this, will these people go into battle as the French Foreign Legion? In other words, will they go into battle as part of the army, the military of France, openly, you know, under the tricolet and all of that? Because that is a war.

If they go there, they pretend that they're volunteers or they pretend that they're contractors or something like that. If we have all of those subterfuges and things, then realistically, one, they're not going to make any difference. And secondly, it will be on such an insignificant scale, given the scale of things. I think the Russians will just make hay about it, but they won't feel that they need to do much more. except amplify it because it won't go down well in France. Yeah, 2000 as mercenaries or contractors is nothing, but 2000 as military, as French military is a tripwire. Absolutely, exactly.

Yeah. Mr. Casey says, good evening gentlemen, do you guys think Ukraine might end up like East Germany in terms of their political and military structure? The GDR had a police force, then later an army under the USSR's control. Well, who knows? I don't think so, actually. I'm going to say this. If there is, when there is a collapse in Ukraine, assuming that a new political structure is created in Kiev,

this is what I believe. I believe the horror, not just of the last four years, but of the last 30 years going all the way, 30, whatever it is, all those years going all the way back to Ukraine. independence will be so profound inside Ukraine itself that you won't need much of a dictatorship or military structures or security structures or controls from Moscow because people themselves there won't want to go back there again. So it might actually be a much more normal country than the one we've seen up to now and one which gets on much better with Russia than pre-war Ukraine has done. I do think this is impossible.

Carol 7 says brilliant. Thanks Melkane and the Duran. This turned out to be very optimistic and uplifting to listen to. Thank you. I agree. J.J.H.W. says the foreign legion will be sheep, dipped, and be contractors. I agree. I completely agree. Thank you for that.

J.01. Thank you for the super sticker. Brandt LeBowski says, how come she has never brought up the Gaza, Genese, I don't know that she hasn't. I mean, she just, she did briefly touch on it during the program. She clearly has, it doesn't approve of it or approve of the policies of the United States with respect to it. So, you know, I'm not.

I think she brought it up, yeah. I think she brought it up. Yeah, exactly. Sangeva, Sakewa, 100, but it's Sangeva. One of two off subject. But Alexander, can you give a neutral and objective view about what's, more important inflation or economic growth. Many people are angry at Nabilina, but would it inflation eat into fixed incomes? Part two. But then Russia has never had

inflation below 4% either. But on the other hand, Turkey has 3.5% economic growth at the expense of 33% inflation. Yes. People say it's impossible to live in Turkey with Turkish inflation. Well, I haven't been to Turkey for a long time. I mean, I understand the situation. there is actually extremely complicated. And I've also been told that one shouldn't believe too much some of the growth numbers there. Now, I don't know, and I'm not going to talk about Turkey too much. In Russia, actually, they have had periods of inflation at around 2%.

She's actually pushed inflation down to 2% on occasion. And that was contrary to her wishes. What Nebula is saying is, look, Russia does need to grow. The economy does need growth. It can't have, therefore, inflation at the 2% level that used to be the state, you know, the target level in the West, because Russia needs to go faster than that. At the same time, if it has inflation that is higher than 4%. then, then it will do exactly what you said. It will cut into fixed incomes. It will also start to distort and unbalance the entire structure of the economy. It will mean that there will be a disincentive to save. It will mean that there will be less long-term investment because Russia wants long-term investment so that it can develop high technology like aerospace, like microprocessors and that kind of thing.

And it is impossible to invest and plan over the long term if you have very, very high inflation. One of the reasons why Turkey cannot develop, you know, advanced technologies in that kind of way is because however high the growth rate is, you can't invest in a project of that kind over the long term because eventually it arose away. So Nebula has said 4% is the golden mean. We need higher inflation than in the West

because we need to grow faster than they do in the West in order to develop our economy better. But we also need inflation at 4% in order to maintain stability in price growth, make it's attractive for people to save and possible for people to plan long term. And she's fought single-mindedly ever since she became chair of the Russian Central Bank to achieve that. And she has to a great extent, by the way. I mean, one can look up, you know, that there's been, obviously there's been fluctuations. But the fact that she and the central bank have had a strong anti-inflation policy

has definitely meant that inflation in Russia has fallen significantly during her time before she became central bank chair throughout the entire period since the fall of the Soviet Union, since in fact a period before the fall of the Soviet Union, inflation in Russia was always in double figures. So you can see what she's,

You can see what she's trying to do. She says 3% growth in which you have technological development and long-term investment with stable prices is better than 5% growth with 20% inflation, which is growth without development. Eric Hatchett says Bakroth's cauldron needs more meat. God, I hate myself. What you mean? I know.

Thank you for you. Thank you. Sahewa 100, Sanjava. I'm just going to say Sanjava. That's your, that's the handle that we know, Sanjava. At Zareel, at Alex. Yes, Sahara 100 is equal to Sanjava. I have no idea why YouTube changed my handle.

I certainly did it do it. Deep State strikes again. Partially kidding. Oh, okay. Partially not. All right. Ruitt says, U.S. appropriates cash of the vassals and needs for Iran and Venezuela.

Yeah, I know, absolutely. I mean, there is a, there is, this is a late imperial development coming back to the discussion that we've had. The empire starts to become increasingly predatory on its own vassals, and it becomes increasingly an operation to plunder. By the way, you see that in Europe as well. Alex, if I can say, did an absolutely brilliant post on X about two weeks ago, in which he said that, you know, as the whole Ukraine project, we've reached that point

in the Ukraine project when actually seizing things like Russian financial reserves and things of that kind becomes the absolutely central priority in order to keep the money flow, in order to keep the grift going. And I think that this is very much what you're starting to see now. Yeah, I mean, we've been saying for a while now that when the EU takes that 200 billion or 140 billion in Russian frozen assets, that will be a big indication that we are at the end of this. Yes, yes.

And the EU is getting close. We're very, very close to that. By the way, Wolfgang Munchao, formerly at the Financial Times, but obviously no longer what he has run a brilliant piece about this as well. And he said that what it reminds him all very much is some of this rather interesting financial experiments that happened in the immediate run-up to the 2008 financial crash. Just to say. Well, you know what it is, Alexander, in a way,

They've given all the money they possibly could to Ukraine. And the only cash, the only big amount of cash that is still left is that money in Euroclear. And so they're going to clean that out. And then this whole thing just comes to an end. That's the way I'm seeing it. Yes. Yes. Fuzzy Ball says transit planes from Russia, China, and Iran have been coming and going from Venezuela.

A lot of military supplies have been delivered. won't be as simple as many are thinking. Venezuela has one million plus troops. Well, we'll see. I mean, I'm not going to make any predictions because I don't know. Also, I'll say this. I remember that back in the summer of last year, there were reports of Russian transport planes flying to Iran with air defense systems. And it turned out that, I mean, there had been those flights, but they didn't actually come with air defense systems. So it's still not quite clear what they were transporting. No doubt one day we will know.

But we don't yet know exactly what all of these flights to Venezuela are transporting as well. Venezuela is very vulnerable. I mean, it is far away from Russia, China and Iran. It is a very big country. It's very mountainous. Much of it is jungle. I think there will be a lot of opposition. and intense resistance probably to an American military intervention there.

But can Venezuela so far away from its allies resist the might of the United States? We'll see. The Al-Khali says possible that Nabilina is part of the club, even if Putin is not? I don't think so. I followed Nabilina for a very, very long time. And if I have to say this, I think that she is what, in Germany once used to be called a national liberal, in that she does adhere quite closely to some aspects of conventional liberal economics.

And she's a very, very orthodox and conventional central banker. And in some ways, in my opinion, by the way, a very good one. But she's also very much of a nationalist. Let me give an example of what I'm in by that. along with this very tight monetary policy, which she has followed, which I think, you know, you can argue about it, but I think there's a very strong case that her approach actually has been long term a beneficial one.

But alongside that, she has played a massive role in cleaning up the banking system, which most people don't know. When she became a central bank chair, There were hundreds of so-called banks across Russia. Most of them weren't really banks at all. They were strange institutions run by assorted oligarchs. Most of them deeply connected to the Western financial system. They were described to me by a Russian banker who'd worked in one as black holes into which money went from Russia and came out in Wall Street or London

or Frankfurt, all those sort of places. And the very first thing she did as central bank chair was that she began a massive campaign to close them all down. And she completely wiped them out. She played a massive role in this. And it was a very difficult thing to do. And one which, as you can imagine, of all kinds of people, including people in the West,

strongly opposed her about. But she did it. And the result is that Russia today has a very, very solid banking system in which the four big banks are state-owned. That doesn't seem to me like what kind of action of somebody who's tied up with the global financial oligarchy? Very true. Good example. Damnation 13 says please click like and share the channel. Absolutely. Thank you for that damnation. So Laris says Trump has taken back our country.

guest is clueless and she never mentioned the Jewish role in the expansion of globalism. Fuzzy Ball says, is the path now for Russia to take Mikhailayev and Odessa and go all the way to the port of Odessa, then go to Trump and tell him that they are ready for a ceasefire? Trump will have zero leverage. Well, quite possibly. I come back to what I was saying about two weeks ago before all the talk of the Budapest summit started. Putin met with the military in St. Petersburg, and it was quite absolutely clear to me from what he said and from what they were doing there, visiting the tombs of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, and all of the accompanying commentary that was going around. He was saying, look, if the war goes on, then by all means go on to Odessa. I know that's part. I know that's in your plans. Just do it.

No. Reber Ractual 22 says, Hi, guys, I'm a fan, but why do you keep inviting Barnes? Most people in the comments think he's a propagandist. Well, I don't. I would say the opposite. I think most people in the comments like, and we get the best reactions. I would say that too, absolutely. Yeah, you know.

Where are here? Linda says, will Russia help Venezuela? or betray them too like they did to Iran? Well, they weren't betrayed Venezuela and they didn't betray Iran. No, I was going to say, I mean, they didn't betray Iran and they didn't betray Iran and they didn't they won't betray Venezuela. I mean, Russia offered Iran, we've discussed this many times, a lot of help which Iran, for its own reasons, which were rational reasons, said no when it was offered.

I mean, the Russians wanted to help Iran create an integrated air defense system. Iran said no. Now, during the actual 12-day war, I mean, it was very difficult for Russia or China. It was impossible for Russia and China to intervene decisively in a way that could have changed the situation. And Iran never asked them to. It didn't ask Russia or China to do that because Iran was holding its own. It was launching missile strikes against Israel, and eventually it forced the Americans and the Israelis to ask for a ceasefire. So I don't think Russia betrayed Iran.

This is a complete myth. As for Venezuela, it's the same. What more can Russia do beyond what it is doing now? They've just, by the way, just now, just the last couple of days, they've ratified a strategic partnership agreement with Venezuela. They've been providing Venezuela with weapons. They've provided Venezuela with a lot of technology. Venezuela is far away.

Russia doesn't have a huge fleet. What more can it do beyond what it has already done? Sophisticated caveman says, in your opinion, have the world powers calculated that it's better for Donbass and possibly Kiev to be administered by Russia than by a rogue Ukraine? Well, I think some world powers might have done, but it doesn't seem to me as if that's the opinion in Europe at all. And I don't see much sign that it's the opinion in the United States either. I mean, Trump, incomprehensibly to me, continues to meet Zelensky on a regular basis.

I don't know why Trump gives Zelensky the time of day, but he does. Can't figure it out either. Chunky Monkey 329 says, My experience in working for the Australian government is that the government can pass laws, then technocrats face no consequences for refusing to implement those laws. Absolutely. I've seen that myself. Don't forget I was a kind of technocrat myself for a time. Well, you know, there's a famous joke in a British.

satirical TV program called Yes Minister, where an official says, I'm not a trained lawyer. That's why they put me in charge of the legal department. I've actually been in exactly that situation. I used to work in a legal department, and none of the people who headed it were ever lawyers. This is extraordinary, but it's true.

Is Kayakal as a diplomat? Absolutely, exactly. Exactly. One of the big mistakes people make, by the way, about tech, so-called technocratic government, because this is an example, this is all bureaucracy that I'm talking about. I'm not looking about the politicians above. The mistake many people make is that they think the technocratic government is competent and efficient government. My experience is it's the absolute opposite. It's government in which nothing, nothing ever happens.

There's a huge amount of activity. Everybody's always busy. Everybody's, well, some people at least, are very exhausted. But in actual terms of anything materially useful being done, it doesn't happen. Pousy Ball says, is the goal of Brussels to bankrupt the EU then become indebted to the World Monetary Fund and pass real control to the W. nothing else makes sense. I think the WEF and the EU are one and the same. I think much significant difference.

I mean, the WEF began back in the 60s as the project, basically, to create European political union. I mean, that's what they called themselves at that time. They only started to call themselves the WEF, I think, in the 1980s. I mean, it's a relatively later development. So they were always aiming for the, the European structures that we see today. And, well, there's a huge topic to discuss that.

But I think, you know, they're pretty happy with the structures that they see now. K.N. Karin says, I appreciate the Durand so much. This channel is so refreshing. Don't change. Thank you for that. And Jolly Lollipop says, Candice Owens, Max Blumenthal, 2008. This ticket will capture both the black and Jewish votes. well one can waste

that would be an interesting ticket yeah why not all right that is that is everything alexander

let me just do a quick check and your final thoughts as I it is an extraordinary it is an extraordinary program I mean this is this is a this is a

this is not unconventional history I mean there is a lot of writing about this and it's done within academic circles

especially in Britain. It's not widely known outside, but especially the interconnections between Americans and Britons of a certain class and type and power before the First World War. That is very well established. And the developments in the 1920s and 30s,

the role of people like Montague-Norman, Kalmershacht, that's also been talked about quite a lot. So we touched with Mao. are some really important and very interesting subjects. And by the way, if you really want to read the memoir, a very mendacious and manipulative memoir, a very interesting memoir,

written by one of the people that we've been talking about today. Healmershacht wrote a very interesting memoir about how central banks work. Just a second. I'll get to that when I'm done reading Jan Stoltenberg's memoirs. Oh. that he's promoting right now. Absolutely, yeah.

Well, I read Kamala Harris' account of the election, which is quite funny, actually. It was really, really funny. How I did absolutely everything right and completely brilliant. And for some reason, I still lost, and it's all the fault of everyone else than me. That's basically what it is. Yeah, absolutely. She might run in 2028.

Here's a question from Monty 1054. And 54. How high is the risk of Russia using a potential American coup in Venezuela to get some payback for all the high Mars fired in pre-2014 Russia? Who knows? I don't think that the Russians are looking for a confrontation with the Americans in Venezuela, because from their point of view, they're not strong there. I mean, this is so far away from their territory that it's difficult for them to project power. there. But if there are attacks on their country, well, they've now said they will respond. They've been getting out of their way to say in much more forceful language than they have ever done. They've undoubtedly been listening to us on the Durant, just to say, because we pointed out that they made a massive mistake last November when they didn't react strongly. And talking

seriously now, I think many people, including boosting himself, understand that. You're talking about the Orscinik, right? the Geraschnyi yeah that was the response that was the response but it was only one this time they're making it clear that if something like that happens they will react much more strongly this time all right is there a question are you're telling me i'm raising it one second Alexander um and anything else that you want to comment on as i check for this message this question no i think also her the point she's making that the state extends beyond people who work in government is absolutely true. I mean, that's actually

one of the most disturbing developments. I mean, if you'd gone to America in, say, 1880, you either worked for the government or you didn't. Today, that boundary has been eroded away. So you have people who absolutely do work in government. Then you have people who work in all kinds of Paris state institutions, NGOs, all that kind of thing, think tax, all that kind of thing, who work with public money. Then you have other people who have enormous contacts inside government. All of these people meet with each other. All these people have discussions and talk with each other. And it's very difficult to know where the boundaries actually are today. And that makes this whole thing much more insidious and difficult to control and hold accountable than it used to be.

All right. We got everything. Thank you, Elsa, for that super sticker. And on that note, we will end to the show. So thank you to everyone that watched us on Rockfin and Odyssey Rumble, YouTube, and our locals, the durand.com. Also check us out on substack. Indeed. For us on substack as well. And to remind everybody, I'm doing my live stream on locals tomorrow. At 1400, exactly, 1,400 hours, ESD, 1,800 hours London time. Because the clocks, the clocks are different. We've switched our time.

We switched our time. Exactly. Yeah. So definitely check out Alexander tomorrow on locals. The link is in the description box. Free to sign up. You can watch Alexander's exclusive live stream on locals. every Wednesday and check us out on substack as well.

Alexander is also writing exclusive articles, which are published on locals and on substack as well. So look for that. And we will end the live stream there. And of course, Mel Kay's links are in the description box and will be pinned as the first comment. So that is it for this evening, Alexander. Take care.

Thank you to our moderators as well. Thank you. everybody thank you thank you thank you