The Duran Podcast - Dropping Ukraine To Focus On Trump w/ Daniel McAdams

Episode Date: December 22, 2023

Dropping Ukraine To Focus On Trump w/ Daniel McAdams

Okay, we are live. And we have with us, Alexander Mercutis in London. And we have joining us for the first time. But we hope to have Daniel McAdams on many times going forward. Daniel, it is great to finally have you join us on the Duran. Well, thank you very much. Good morning from Texas, gentlemen. Great to have you with us.

Daniel, I have your information. where people can find you in the description box down below. Would you like to tell people that are watching right now, where is the best place to connect with you? Well, the rompaw institute.org is where we put up our articles. We just put up a couple, you know, two or three a day. There are the things we think that you are to most benefit from. Dr. Ron Paul and I do the Daily Ron Paul Liberty Report live on Rumble at noon,

Monday through Thursday, and Friday they do a financial. show at the same time. And I'm on Twitter at Daniel L. McAdams, or X, I guess I should say, or X Twitter. Twitter X. And I will have all of that information also pinned as a comment as well. So, Alexander, we have Daniel with us for about 30 to 45 minutes. And we have a lot to talk about from Ukraine to Trump. So, Alexander, let's get started.

Oh, by the way, by the way, Alexander, before you start, a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on locals, Rumble, Odyssey, YouTube, and Rock Finn, and a big shout out, a big hello to our amazing moderators. Thank you very much, moderators, for all the help that you give us. Alexander, let's get there. Yeah, well, we're incredibly privileged to have Daniel McCadams with us, because, of course, Daniel, understands. something which I find incredibly difficult to understand, which is American parliamentary

politics, which are increasingly baroque, at least to me. Even by the standards of British Parliament, they're complicated. He worked with Ron Paul in the House of Representatives. He knows the system well. He knows how the two houses work. He knows how politics works. He knows how politics works in the United States. And the United States remains the most single, most important country. I mean, there are other countries which are becoming important, but it is the United States, which remains at the centre of the system. And the United States is going through an extraordinary time. We have wars. The United States is involved in two great wars now, one in Ukraine, where it is fighting a proxy war with Russia and losing. And we have another war in the

Middle East, which it's more difficult to say where it's going exactly, but there's criticisms, mounting criticisms of the policies that the administration is following. And all of this, whilst there are doubts about the future course of the US economy, which once bestrored the world, and which is still a very, very powerful economy indeed, we have a presidency which, in my opinion is becoming increasingly eccentric and dangerous in many of the things that it's doing, but we'll see what Daniel has to say about this. And we have an election season coming up, which looks like it's going to be the most fraught that I have ever known. Suffice to say, we now have legal proceedings being brought against the most popular politician on the opposition

side, Donald Trump, multiple legal proceedings. And we now have had an extraordinary decision. from the Supreme Court of Colorado, which I personally, I get to say straight away, I think it is completely and utterly and almost grotesquely wrong. But the very fact that it's been made at all shows how fraught the situation is. So, Daniel, where shall we begin? Shall we start with the foreign policy, perhaps, spend a little time on that and then concentrate on perhaps the meat of this programme, which is the domestic politics of the United States

and maybe have a look at the economic situation too. But the foreign policy, it seems to me, is all over the place. We've had the administration over-committing, over-investing in Ukraine. It shouldn't have invested there in the first place, in my opinion. That was a completely misconceived policy. They're having trouble getting their appropriations bill for Ukraine through Congress. I should say we've corresponded about this and you'll be able to enlighten us

further on where this is going and it looks to me increasingly that we have a full back idea, a disastrous one in my opinion which is that if we can't get Congress to vote the money then we'll just take the Russians money and use it instead. Have I getting this right and where is this going in Congress

do you think? I think you absolutely have it right. You know, it's difficult to really the tea leaves in Congress because, you know, it's, I have to say it's, it's been 10 years since I've been there and a lot has changed since then and not for the better. And it wasn't that great back then. You know, back when Dr. Paul and I, Dr. Paul was in the house and I was working for him. We did normal appropriations and authorization bills. We, you know, carefully as careful as possible, you know, looked into the NDAA National Defense Authorization, the Foreign Affairs authorization,

and members were able to offer, pardon me, amendments to change things. Members of Congress had much more power than they have nowadays. The power has all been devolved to committee chair and leadership. So you essentially don't have a functioning parliamentary body because you, and I think that's why you have, you know, 430-some petulant children that are running things because they're really not running things. So they have a lot of time for mischief and they're not really. that awfully interested in learning much outside sort of a very narrow narrative that's provided

to them by the still functioning barely U.S. mainstream media. So I would say gentlemen, starting probably, if you had to put, you know, a date on it, I would say starting in 2020 in a way with the sort of arrival of the COVID lockdowns and the COVID reactions and how, you know, you had this kind of panic and hysteria where cooler heads, did not prevail. In fact, cooler heads were lopped off. And that continued really without a pause when it came for Ukraine. They just basically, and there were a lot of memes and cartoons, they basically just switched the flags and then it was Ukraine on their profile pages and what have you. And he had the same herd mentality where there was no pause. Putin is Hitler and we have

to stop him. Otherwise he'll be in Washington soon. And when you had any cooler heads in this, I'm thinking back in early 2022, when we're passing the initial large authorization in the House and Senate of what it was, that $100 billion, just a little bit of change, when cooler heads tried to prevail, and I'm thinking specifically of someone like Senator Rand Paul, who said, okay, this money's not, this money's going to pass. I get it. I can read what's happening here. But can we at least put in an inspector general, someone like we've had in Afghanistan, the special inspector general for Afghanistan, reconstruction who's been extraordinarily effective in my opinion even suggesting that incurred the wrath of the entire Washington Beltway he's obviously working for for Putin he's obviously on the payroll so there's no time for pause and here we are a year and a half later and there's nothing but ruins in front of them so what do you do you change your Ukraine flag for an Israeli flag and you full steam ahead. So it's very upsetting. You gentlemen, I'm sure we'll remember well, and I'm sorry to belabor this, but it was a similar mentality back in 2002 when the neocons and the Bush administration

were determined to go to Iraq. And every day people like Judith Miller in the New York Times would put out another piece of slop, and it would be dutifully amplified by the mainstream meeting, which had a lot more power back then. So you still have this same herd mentality, you, but I would argue that the stakes are now much higher than attacking Saddam Hussein. Well, absolutely. I mean, this is Russia. I mean, it's not, it's not, I mean, they've got, they actually do have weapons of mass destruction. I mean, nuclear weapons more even than we do. And they have a very, very powerful army. And one gets the sense that they're winning. I mean, that's certainly the sense we're getting here on the Duran. We've been following the war

very, very carefully. Is this something that people in Washington understand that, you know, this war is not going well? I mean, because, you know, we're seeing all this talk all the time about, you know, that this is a stalemate and we can hold it there indefinitely, and, you know, we can give them a bit more money here and a bit more money there and it will somehow all go away and roll over. But that's not how it looks to us. And I'd say this, I don't know whether people in the US understand. that but it's not how people in Europe see it. I mean, I was reading some articles today in the

Financial Times especially. And they're beginning to panic. They're saying, you know, if Ukraine goes, falls, I mean, the usual thing. I mean, I don't know that people necessarily take this domino theory nonsense particularly seriously. But they will feel that, you know, Europe has been led up a particular path and inevitably there's going to be a backlash against the U.S. when all this is over. Do people in the U.S. understand that? And are they thinking about some way out of this? I mean, J.D. Vance talks about talks starting negotiations. I mean, is anybody going to do that, do you think? Well, you know, the political leadership in the U.S. is the trailing edge. You know, we've seen the leading edge is public opinion. And, I mean, we've seen poll after poll.

We've seen support from the initial, you know, groundswell of support for poor plucky democracy, Ukraine back in 2020 when Putin woke up one morning and decided to invade out of the clear blue. Of course, everyone rallied around the flag, but when then when the American public sobered up, you know, you see the numbers completely going south. And this is even among Republicans, and I think there was a poll maybe a month or so ago, where even among Republicans, including the neocons, there's less than 50, percent support for more money to Ukraine. Again, Congress is a trailing edge on this, but, you know, what really worries me and concerns me seriously is that you have this kind of circular reasoning. You have kind of an echo chamber in Washington, D.C., certainly members. Now, that's a given. Members and senators are not enlightened. There's a myth that they are more well-informed. They have access to things that the rest of us don't. Not true. Absolutely not true.

and I spent 11 years on the Hill, and I know that for a fact. They read the mainstream media. They have absolutely no interest in alternative media, with the exception of a few members. And I would guess probably Senator Vance, certainly Congressman Thomas Massey would, but with very few exceptions, I apologize for that, there is very little interest in anything external. But what worries me more is the circular reasoning within the State Department of Pentagon. And I think we see, not to get out ahead of us, but I think we see in the State Department the extensive use of the back channels of the alternative channels. And I spent a little bit of time working in the State Department.

I know a little bit about how it works. but the fact that you had dozens and dozens of State Department experts using the back channel to say we disagree with the policy should be encouraging, but nevertheless, especially when you have the Pentagon basically becoming a propaganda outlet rather than a warfighting outlet, at least when it comes to the top layer, the political layer, you've got danger on your hands. And as you point out very well, Alexander, when you when you mess up with, Syria, it's terrible for the Syrians, but when you mess up your Russia policy, it's terrible for the Americans. Can I just ask this? I mean, this opposition in the House to funding for Ukraine, is it really about the war and about Ukraine, or is it about American domestic politics? Is it about the battle within the Republican Party, the populist wing, as some of our friends call it, and the Mitch McConnell wing? Is it about making it life-women. more difficult for the president? Or is it based upon real convictions and real concerns? Or is it a

mixture of all of those things? Because to be honest, I think there are some people, Marjorie Taylor Greek, for example, who I think is a real convinced, committed opponent of funding for Ukraine. But I think in some other cases, this is simply a case of some people saying, well, why should we give money for Joe Biden's war ahead of the election next year. I mean, this is what I sort of think. But, you know, perhaps you can enlighten this. I mean, I do find it a little bit personally depressing because I would like to think that our superior argumentation and principles would have carried the day. But I am slightly dismayed that I don't believe that really is the case. There are some exceptions. And they're sort of, you know, they're leading the opinion makers. And I know for a fact,

because one of the things that we did when Dr. Paul was on the hill is we hosted a lot of closed-door luncheons for Republican members of Congress. And a lot of the things they said in private, they wouldn't necessarily say in public nor vote that way at first. But then things start to change when they start to talk to each other. So I can imagine that this virus of non-interventionism, at least when it comes to Ukraine, might be spreading. But nevertheless, I think, unfortunately, you are right.

you do have domestic concerns. Principles haven't carried the day. It's more like rubbing their hands together, and unfortunately led by Speaker Mike Johnson, rubbing their hands together saying, how can we get something out of this? How can we give Biden a black eye by making this all about the border?

You give us some new legislation on the border. You change asylum laws, et cetera, et cetera, and we'll give you your money for Ukraine. Now, that I think was much more of a danger. three weeks ago or two weeks ago before the House adjourned and the Senate stayed on for another week or so. That was a bigger danger, but I would say every day that passes that they don't, that they don't authorize this money is a day that's a good day for us. The momentum is in our favor because the flavor of the month is now getting a little bit stale. And we saw that from the last trip of Zelensky to

Washington, D.C. He's now become toxic. He's become, you know, kryptonite in Washington, D.C. And, you know, as much as they loved him, they can certainly turn on him. You can ask Gaddafi about that. What about this incredible idea, which is now being a lot, talks about a lot in Europe, of seizing Russian assets, using that instead to fund the war. After all, we got $260 billion there. So, you know, it's sitting around. It is somebody else's private, somebody else. else's property, but one gets the sense that that's merely an inconvenience for some people rather than a problem, which is an incredible thing to say about the United States, by the way. But do you think this is really going to happen? Because the financial times, interestingly,

is worried about it. They've done an editorial today saying that this has been a very, very bad idea, but they seem to think that it might actually happen. I mean, it seems like they would be going full rogue if that's the case, you know. But all of these wonderful tools that they had, look at the oil price cap. That was supposed to kneecap the Russians didn't do so. I mean on the 12th package now of sanctions that haven't done it. And they keep trying to escalate. It's almost comical in a way how the effect has always been the opposite.

You know, I think there are some assets in Russia that might be seizable, you know, by Russia assets of the West that may be seizable as well. So if you start down this path, I mean, it looks like we're going toward chaos. And, you know, again, I think that, you know, given the situation, Russia has the escalation dominance. It's proven itself more agile, I think, certainly, than the EU and the United States when it comes to these matters. I mean, what some people seem to overlook, or so it seems to me,

is that one of the fundamental principles upon which the American, American economy was based was the sanctity of private property rights, not just private property rights, but state property rights generally, and the administration, the impartial administration of law. And that was how the US grew and became prosperous and rich. People were able to engage in free activity, entrepreneurial activity. They knew that their property rights were protected, that the courts would administer them, that the government wouldn't seize that money. And importantly, people around the world knew that also. That's one reason why they're prepared to lend money to the United States and park their money

in the United States. And of course, not just the United States. Perhaps in Britain, we're even more vulnerable to this because we're such a smaller economy, but that was what we did. Now, you know, Dr. Paul does understand that. I wonder sometimes whether people in the White House do. In fact, I get the sense that they don't, they don't really care. Well, I think they're backed into a corner.

You know, they've failed in literally every part of their foreign policy. They don't deserve the blame for Afghanistan because that can be shared equally over the past 20 years from all the president's, and certainly contributed to it. They're backed into a corner. But I think America is in a state of complete, you know, shell shock. You know, I spend a number of years living in Europe and working as an election monitor for the British Helsinki Human Rights Group.

And I can tell you, if we ever went to a country to monitor an election where the person in power was having the top opposition leader thrown in jail or getting rid of, gotten off of the ballot, even the OSCE might, you know, might make a peep in that case. So it's, we've sort of devolved into this banana republic where, you know, the stakes of politics are so high that your team are or team D and you don't care. I mean, I mean, I may get into this later, but this whole issue with the Colorado ballot is it because if you are team D, you're like, maybe we'll, maybe we'll, and you're following the pack, well, maybe we'll gain from this. If you're team D and you're a little smarter, you're saying, oh, crap, this is a bad idea. if your team are and say, well, if they could do it, why can't we ban Biden from the ballots in these states? So, I mean, I just think that everything is coming apart at the seams in the United States,

including, as you point out, the basic economic, you know, bedrock of our society. Well, indeed. I mean, the decision, the Colorado decision, I think is an absolute monstrosity. I mean, I've read the 14th Amendment. The, you know, the history of it is something I actually once long ago, studied. I mean, it was, you know, part of my first degree was starting the American Civil War, which I did intensive, intensively, not just the civil war, but, you know, the politics of it, the war between the States, as people still call it. I studied all of that and how the 14th Amendment came about and the reconstruction laws and all of that. So taking this amendment and weaponising it in this fashion against a political.

political opponent seems incredible. And getting a court, a high court in one of the states to go along with this, going against its, you know, the opinions of its own cheat justice, I would not have believed this possible. If you'd asked me, you know, five, ten years ago, can this happen? I'd have said in America, no. And yet it has. And it's all, well, but Trump, it's because of Trump. I mean, Trump has driven the country. completely insane. And we can see this repeated in Maine, in anywhere else. And, you know, these are perhaps states that Trump wouldn't have carried anyway. And, you know, because of our electoral college system, at the end of the day, it may not make such a difference. However, as you say, it's the principle. It's astonishing. Who would have ever believed? I mean, you know, I read part of the opinion, at least, of the, and remember, these are all seven of these judges on the Colorado Supreme Court are appointed. by Democratic governors.

So the fact that three of them have dissented, and at least some of the dissent I've read, makes a lot of sense that there's no mechanism for enforcement. You know, where basically this is an extra-constitutional punishment of a candidate, which has no basis. There's no system. There's no way of doing this. You know, this is someone who has not even been charged with an insurrection,

much less have been convicted. And even if he was charged, it wouldn't have changed anything. So it's the reach here. And I think that's why you're seeing people in the Democratic Party, the old sort of leadership, like, and I don't remember specifically if it was James Carville who said it, but someone like him, who's been an operative for decades, have said, this is going to backfire. This is a bad idea.

And even Frank Luntz, a Republican poll master who hates Trump with the passion, he says, you guys don't know what you're getting into. You're making him more popular. And yet maybe there is a degree of satisfaction that we get from that or that I get from that because they deserve a bloody nose. But nevertheless, when you look at the system as a whole, and it's a great word, if you weaponize literally every aspect of American life, well, then you become the system as it wasn't in the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. And I moved to Hungary right after the end of communism. And so there was still very, very heavily, you know, the culture was so subsumed with that idea of us versus them.

Were you in the party or were you a dissident and what have you? And this is where we're getting to and it's toxic. Well, absolutely. I mean, I studied Soviet law, by the way. And there was, I mean, there was the foundational principle articulated by Byszynski, who was Stalin's chief prosecutor in which he said, you know, you don't look at the evidence. You look at the person. That's what really matters. I mean, you don't worry about whether the evidence,

there's any evidence there, or even whether there's any law there. It's the person. That is the underlying principle of Soviet law at that time. And it's in Soviet legal textbooks, incredible, as it says. But at least that was straightforward and honest. In America, of course, America is supposed to function in a completely different way. And as I often point out to people,

to a very great extent is a product of its constitution. The two countries emerged, the constitution and the nation arose together. If you take the constitution out, if you distort it and disfigure it and manipulate it in this kind of way and the legal system in this kind of way, what you have left, it may still be a political, a polity, But it is no longer the United States of America as it was originally set up to be.

And I think this is something which, again, Americans need to understand. And it's all about wielding power at that point. And you see in the U.S., you see the complete destruction of what would be the traditional left, the progressive left. And you saw we worked with coalitions from the traditional progressive left, even up through the Iraq war. That's gone with very few exceptions. in the U.S., the populist right maybe in the emergence, but it's nothing like, in my opinion,

now there's some hope there, but there's nothing like we had maybe 20 years ago when Pat B. Kenan, for example, in the U.S. was leading a right-wing populist movement against war and against interventionism. And by the way, for the working class in America, that was Pat Buchanan's big appeal. And that's something Trump very, very wisely tapped into in 2016, is the reason he won. He tapped into the Rust Belt and the essence of the American work of the Democratic Party, which my grandparents voted for because they were for the working man. They don't give a damn about the working man at all anymore. And they all but say so. It's all about special interests and special groups and getting power. So America is undergoing

a real fundamental transformation. And I think that's why everyone seems a little bit dizzy. They don't really know where to go. That's absolutely correct. Can I just say, I was just as it happened. happens a few, a short time ago. I was looking at old films of JFK and Lyndon Johnson, you know, meeting people, working crowds, you know, working crowds as politicians used to do. And it's, it's striking to see the kind of people that were coming up to see Kennedy and Johnson in the 60s were the people you see at Trump rallies today. It's, it's, it's, it's exactly the same demographic that once used to be the core demographic of the Democratic Party.

And it was the sort of idea of the old left, to which I once belonged, by the way, which was based upon, you know, working class and unions and things of that guy. That doesn't exist anymore. It doesn't exist anywhere. It doesn't exist in the United States. It doesn't exist in Europe. What is it about Donald Trump, the people are so upset about. I mean, he was president for four years. What did he do when he was president that made people, you know, that was so terrible? Well, he brought us Nikki Haley, who just announced that the Hamas attack on October 7th was actually a birthday president, a present to President Putin, and that's the real conspiracy. So this is our foreign policy expert, Nikki Haley, who were told

is catching up to Trump. He gave us John Bolton. He gave us innumerable. He gave us innumerable, foreign policy, neocons and morons. The only good thing he did was name my good friend Colonel McGregor, like at literally 48 hours before he had to depart. Doug, I need to get out of Afghanistan. I need a plan by tomorrow. I mean, it's really, okay. So that's the thing that we scratch our heads. And I have to confess to some admiration for Trump. And it's not because of what he's done. he didn't start a new war, and that's fair enough. He did make a stupid move and kill Soleimani, but nevertheless. But I like him, and a lot of Americans like him because they hate the elite so much

that anyone who drives them crazy is there a guy. And I think that's where we are in America. That's his appeal. And that's why anything they do to try to harm him actually helps him. He feeds off of it. And that makes them even crazier, so they try something new. So it's, it's, it's, it's toxic but entertaining. But it's, it's dangerous as well, because, as we've seen, I mean, if, if any of this holds, if any of these legal cases succeed.

And I'm much more worried about this than some people are. Not because I think any of these legal cases stack up, but precisely because they don't. I used to work, as you probably know, in the High Court in London. And I looked at these cases. And none of them make any kind of. sense to me at all. Some of them seem to me so absurd, actually, legally speaking, that I am, that makes me more worried still, because if prosecutors are bringing absurd cases, do they know something about the courts that I don't? I mean, it's, it, it, it, it, it makes you

worried about where all this is going. But if this happens, if we start getting convictions, if there are real moves to exclude him from the presidency or harass him in that kind of way. I mean, this looks to me like it has the potential to snowball. And besides, it creates a terrible precedent for the future. If you can prosecute Trump, why can't you prosecute someone else? If you can impeach Trump after he's left the presidency, why can't you do that to any other person who's been president? before. So, I mean, these are very, very dangerous things that have been done.

It's a road to idiocry, literally. It seems that's where we're heading. But, you know, Dr. Paul, who, you know, we do our show every day, and he's not given to making rash statements. And he said something yesterday that surprised me. He said, I think if this Colorado thing holds, we're going to see violence in the U.S. And I think he's probably right. I think the anger, the senior leader is so strong among the silent majority in the US. I hesitate to think what will happen. It will be horrible. I have to say another point which I think you might want to comment on

is that the economy, the American economy, is being managed in a very, very strange way. The monetary system has been managed in a very strange way for a very long time. I actually think that the reason that's how. happening is partly because the need, and I'm sure this is the case, the need to sustain this sort of global presence that the United States has taken on for itself. But when you do that, when you start manipulating and changing the economy, making it sort of more of a smoke and mirrors thing than it used to be, well, that inevitably is going to have an effect on other things. It means

that politics can't be conducted. a transparent way if the economy isn't being conducted managed transparently either so there is the direct link for example between the fact that the senate refuses rand paul's idea by having an audit and the fact that we have decisions like the one in colorado and all of these things coming together in that kind of way in other words if the economy if money isn't sound really sound Nothing is. And, well, we're managing a global empire on a credit card. Yeah.

And anyone who's close to being maxed out on a credit card, when the interest rates rise, you know what happens. Your payments double, you know, and it's, what, $34 trillion in debt. I think for the first time, servicing the interest on our debt payments will exceed the military budget, I believe, next year. So you're seeing this massive chunk of our global wealth. being used to continue the illusion that we're in charge and we're running things. And meanwhile, we haven't really gotten into this, but meanwhile, you're seeing the one force that has been used

because industry is gone in America as it is now in Germany, but industry is gone in America. We have a service sector, but we did have the strongest military, and that's what keeps us number one. Well, we learned in Ukraine and my friend Bill Scriber, who had a great piece out the other day or yesterday, I think it was, the U.S. has put every single one of their top weapon systems against Russia and Ukraine, and each of them attack them. High Mars, you gentlemen know it, know it all. They've all been defeated. Now they don't shoot down everyone, as well said, but they shoot down enough. So even that sort of last vestige of our global power, our global influence now has been disproven. in Ukraine. So what is there left? You have to wonder, at some point it will sink in,

but this isn't the time yet. What about this thing that we're hearing, that there is a massive recruitment crisis for the U.S. military? I mean, you're in Texas. As I understand it, the South is a major recruitment area for the U.S. military. It seems a lot of military families their sons no longer want to join. I mean, first of all, can you confirm that? And why do you think that is happening? Is it because people are becoming exhausted and cynical by the need to maintain the Sempire?

Well, I think there are a number of factors, and one of them is, you know, the increasing, quote, wokeness in the military. I mean, you don't have to, I mean, if you see what's been happening, to the military in terms of its promotion of the social LGBT, etc., etc. It's sort of taken precedent over fighting wars. And the crisis in recruiting is so intense that there's open talk now

about simply recruiting illegal aliens into the military. And here's how you get citizenship. It's sort of a mercenary army that we're going to have because most Americans, as you point out, certainly from the South, the military has lost that allure, that a bit you know your the page the sense of patriotism and that's completely gone so you you have a strange situation where you know you basically crossing the border okay you know here's here's a here's a here's a here's a here's a uniform you can be an american it's not it i don't think that's a recipe for

for ruling the world i mean i can remember when i used to go to america the the the reverence in which the military was held and i've been this is a grassroots thing i mean i can remember, you know, I was seeing a soldier, you know, at a cafe and the people there said, you know, the waiter said, thank you for your service, you know, the fact that you're serving in the military. There was this enormous pride in the US military and apparently pride in serving in it. And that seems to be draining away. Can I suggest that so much of what you're describing is actually not so different from that previous end of empire moment, which is a Briton I'm very familiar with. I live in London, the old imperial capital,

because one of the reasons that the British Empire collapsed, again, was because it became increasingly difficult for the British government to find young people prepared to serve in the military. The credit of the British government became exhausted. It found itself in debt to its own empire, which was increasingly unwilling to fund that debt. And eventually, and of course, the industrial system, because of the effort taken to sustain the empire for very long time, the industrial system that had been the machine that had created it in the first place had atrophied so that, you know, come the 1950s, it was antiquated and starting to break down. seems to me, America is going through a very, very similar cycle.

I think that's absolutely true. You know, I'm just thinking as you're putting all these things together, I remember at lunch I had probably 15 years ago with someone from the Chinese embassy. And at that time, there was a lot of talk about the Chinese holding an enormous amount of U.S. debt, which they don't any longer. But we were chatting about this, and I said at some point, you know, this is funny money, this is fake money. You're going to reach a point where you're going to get, you're going to want to get rid of this. And he said, come on, that's never going to happen.

There's no alternative. There's no competitor. Well, now there is. We're seeing that, and that's because of the, partly at least because of the policy of Biden in Ukraine and Russia. They have forced the rest of the world, the global south, if you want to call it that, into providing alternatives. And they're there and people are taking them.

I don't need to tell either of you about this because we know how much trade now is being conducted in non-dollar denominations. It's here. It's right upon us. And most Americans will scoff at it. Who cares about these, you know, some Uppity Indians somewhere? But it's a fact and the global South is a reality. And it will have implications, I think, for the next, you know, for the rest of the U.S. existence.

Well, so one last point from me, though. And that is that there is a difference between Britain and the U.S., which is that you're a republic and we are not. And you are much bigger country than we are. And you have a much more stronger democratic tradition than we do. and you still have a much more dynamic economy. I think that if all of this could be dropped, you could still turn it round.

I mean, America can still turn it round. It can become again a prosperous, strong, democratic, Republican law-based country. But it's living dangerously. This is what I would say. It's the embodiment. We were like the Hunter Biden of countries right now. We've got to get off the crack and get off the other stuff and clean ourselves up.

Exactly. Daniel McAdams, we're going to have you many times. I think this is a wonderful introduction to you, of you, to the Duran. I get to pass on now to my colleague, Alex. Thank you. Daniel, you want to answer a couple of questions? I've got 10 minutes. I will do my best.

All right. Fragments of the USSR, the effects of Gaza on the Israeli lobby in the United States. the USA, ADF, etc. That's tremendous. And I followed this for a very long time. The tone in the U.S. has radically changed with this latest Israeli attack on Gaza. The proportionality is such that it can't be ignored. You're seeing the rise, and especially it's generationally based.

The young generation, the Gen Z or whatever they're called, if you look at it. at the numbers and how the support for Israel, it's completely the opposite of the old boomers, who that was sort of a reflexive support for Israel, our great ally, the ship of democracy in the Middle East and what have you. That's all gone now. That's all changed. And I think that's one of the reasons why you've seen this assault on universities, because the backlash started in universities, the pro-Palestine backlash against what's happening now in Gaza. And And I think that's why you're seeing some of the backlash against the universities. They're trying to quash it down.

But I myself have been surprised because I've always been very impressed by the strength of the Israeli PR machine in the U.S. They've been very savvy, but they've utterly failed. It's amazing to see they almost look sclerotic. And one of the reasons I have to say is the rise of Twitter X and the suppression at least to a degree of censorship. You're having people like my friend Max Blumenthal who are challenging some of the basic narratives of what happened on October 7th. And it's changing the way people are looking at things, people who are in tune. So there is a very, very big shift. If I were Israel, I would be concerned about this because Israel essentially has no allies other than the U.S. right now.

And squandering that is dangerous. And I think a lot of people in Israel understand that, and certainly people in the U.S. understand it. Jamila asks, do you think the U.S. institution will back down before poking us down? Thank you so much for your great work, gentlemen. I'm afraid I'm leaning more toward where you need to crash before we will sober up. For a long time, I thought maybe we would carry the day. You know, we promote non-interventionism at the Ron Paul Institute,

and that's our main thing in civil liberties, and I would have thought that this would have carried the day. Even appealing to people's pocketbooks might have carried the day. The reason why you can't afford to go to the store now is that you spend a trillion dollars, not on our defense, but on special interest inside the Beltway, and on keeping the elites overseas living in a style they're accustomed to. I think all of that is partly successful,

but ultimately it seems at least to me now that we're facing, an economic crash in 2024 that might hopefully cause people to rethink things. Elena Diaz asks, how can the people in the USA take back their country constitutionally in a peaceful way? Is the future U.S. wants for Russia a split be the remedy for the U.S.? Look at Hawaii. What do they gain? Well, there are a lot of secession movements in the U.S. And it sounds, at first it sounds kooky, sounds conspiratorial, but there are degrees of secession, you know, that can take place. There's nullification where states can nullify stupid federal laws and stupid federal moves and,

you know, the massive bureaucratic state that's centered in Washington, D.C. And I think we see some of that on the immigration issue. For example, in Texas, they're bucking to the degree that's capable of doing. They're bucking the Biden administration's open borders policies. and you're seeing that elsewhere. So, I mean, if there were some glimmer of hope, I would not necessarily mean de jure secession, but sort of a de facto return to more of a federalist system. And that could, you know, there's no reason why Oregon can't remain, you know,

a heavily blue state and Texas can be a red state and we can have different laws. And as a matter of fact, not to get into social issues, but that's why I thought the overturning of Roe v. Wade was great, and it has nothing to do with abortion, in my view. It has to do with states' rights, the ability of states, to regulate things like whether it's murder or not murder or what have you. So I think there is a bright glimmer of hope in that, and we'll see what happens.

I just quickly say that, of course, what Daniel McAdams has mentioned just now is essentially what the original constitution was supposed to be about. I mean, it was not, it was not, it's certainly not a unitary state. That was never what was envisaged when the United States was created. It was a federation of states that came together and which agreed on certain things and had a federal government that basically managed those things that the states gave to it. The United States has become much more like a unitary state.

that his constitution really allows for. And I think that to a large degree is because of the growth of bureaucracy, of the permanent state in the U.S. And the permanent state, well, certainly we're seeing in the Biden administration, the permanent state runs things. Biden is not running things in the state department in the Pentagon or elsewhere. The permanent state is. And even during President Trump, you know, you'd have the president coming out and saying one thing,

the chairman of the joint chiefs saying, well, He didn't really mean that or we're not going to do it anyway. So, you know, you do have the rule of the permanent state in D.C., and that's a big part of the problem. From Rockfin, Gene says Ron Paul had it right when he said, eliminate the Fed. You guys didn't even discuss this, which I see as the only real solution. And you need local direct democracy using 10th Amendment to get it done. Yeah, it's absolutely essential because we could not afford the wars if it wasn't for the Fed.

The Fed creates the money. Pardon me. And also the Fed ships it overseas. And that's one of the reasons why Dr. Paul's sort of signature piece of legislation was audit the Fed because we need to know where the money goes. And when you look back at the 2008 real estate crash, how much money did the Fed send overseas to prop up markets over there? It's the linchpin to the U.S.'s sort of global foreign policy, the global American empire,

is the Fed. It's the linchpin. And it's not an easy nut to crack. And, you know, there aren't, unfortunately, there aren't many round polls in there. Thomas Massey certainly carries the mantle. But the Fed is absolutely the key to everything. The Fed is the engine that drives the war machine. Elza says the Biden White House is looking for money in a magic pot, but using Russian frozen assets would be opening Pandora's box in regards to the global markets.

Yeah, but, you know, Blinken, Blinken has a plan. He said, we've got a plan to maintain Ukraine without this continual influx of money. So, I mean, that's kind of what my parents said to me, you know, when I was 22 and graduated from college. We've got a plan for you, which doesn't include our continuing to give you money. And that means move out. So I think Blinken's plan is going to be abandoning Ukraine. Yeah. Sparky says,

Build a Better World with Bricks, and Tish M asks, are the Houthis testing the fences a la T-Rex in Jurassic Park? Yeah, I mean, we didn't get into that, but that's incredible. You're seeing the triumph of asymmetric warfare here. Literally, I mean, if Biden could find, like,

you know, Houthi capital in Bomet, he would do it in a second. But there's just no, they're there. They're mobile. They fought the Saudis to a standstill after what, eight years or ten years and what have you. You know, they defeated patriot systems in Saudi Arabia. They hit the Saudi airport.

They hit oil fields. They are absolutely fearless, and they've ground global traffic to a halt, except for Russia, by the way, which they've said, okay, you guys can go through. It's absolutely amazing to see. And as someone else commented, if the Houthis can shut down the Red Sea,

Iran can certainly shut down the Persian Gulf. So that is the escalation dominance that you have from an asymmetric system, an asymmetric group like the Houthis, a dedicated and spirited and well-armed group. Daniel, one more question. And then Alexander, we can answer the rest of the questions. Do you have time for one more? Yeah. All right, one more. Let's see here.

from locals, from super guy. Saudis were getting too close to Israel, so Hamas attacked on October 7th. That ended the relationship for good. I think that definitely was a factor. And you gentlemen have covered it on your show many times. That's certainly part of it. I mean, Trump's great Abrahamic accords had one thing missing.

They didn't include the Palestinians. Like, they weren't even invited to the table. And that's a big problem. And it wasn't necessarily a terrible idea. But it's a big problem. And now you're seeing, what is it called, operation restoring whatever, prosperity. Nobody's joining it. Saudi said, no, we don't want any part of it.

The UAE says no. Egypt says no. The Chinese aren't interested. And I was just reading before we started this program that France has now said, you know what, we're not that enthused about this. We're not going to participate. So the U.S. is far from being able to put the Kabul together this global coalition to reopen the Red Sea. It finds itself completely vulnerable with innumerable ships there just waiting to be sunk by this rag-tag group.

So the Saudis, they're no dummies. They don't want any part of this system now. Yeah. Zareel says, thank you very much for having Daniel on, gents. Thank you, Zareel for that. And Raphael says, Merry Christmas, guys. You are the best gentlemen. Thank you, Raphael, for that.

The one and only, Daniel McAdams. Daniel, once again, where can people find you? Rompal Institute.org on Rumble live Monday through Friday, live at noon Eastern time. The Rompal Liberty Report. That information is in the description box down below, and I will add it as a pin comment when we wrap up the live stream. Daniel, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel.

Thank you. Welcome to the GERREN. Thank you. Thank you. Take care. Thanks. Alexander, we have not that many questions to get through. Let's wrap it up and we'll let everybody enjoy their Friday.

Tim, thank you for that super sticker, Valies, thank you for that super sticker. Sparky says Russia absorbing all Ukraine is a death meal for NATO. Once NATO's effectively gone, hold a referendum in Galicia. They can vote to remain Russian or vote to be give it to Poland, Hungary or Romania. There's a lot of, there's a lot in what you say there. You may, it may very well turn out to be just like this. There is an unbelievably panicky article in the Financial Times today, by the way.

The most frightened article in the Western media I've seen, which is almost exactly this thing, that, you know, if, if Russia prevails in Ukraine and this article, basically, accepts that they will, NATO is discredited. And it comes up with all kinds of, you know, reasons and why that would be a bad thing. And it also sort of suggests that all kinds of things should be done to try to reverse it. But you can see that the author doesn't really believe that it will be reversed. Yeah. Alexander, Sparky, when they're panicky, they do stupid stuff. That's what it means.

Absolutely. Someone's going to do something stupid. Yeah. Hello, thank you for that super sticker. Fragments of the USSR, gentlemen, let me wish you a Merry Catholic Christmas and a happy new year in advance. P.S., do you think things in the U.S. may become so bad that a narrative UFO invasion will need to be rolled out? Who knows? I mean, there was one previous occasion, by the way, when the UFO invasion, the narrative, the

narrative of it was sort of publicised and did take hold. And this was just before the Second World War when Norson Wells did a radio broadcast in which he pretended that the United States was being invaded by Mars. And it was supposed to be a fictitious thing. But it's surprisingly large number of people believed it. So who knows? I think today we live in a different world. And I don't think this could quite pull off actually. But narrative is what they are all. about. They are now admitting it all the time. So maybe not UFOs, but something else. Anglo-Rentier oligarch says Biden, Anglo-Zionist M. I Clectocracy, Trump, right-wing populism, Zionist MIC kleptocracy. Prove me wrong. Well, we're not going to prove you, Rob. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. Sleepy Crane says the counteroffensive is going too successful if it's. it's not successful, it's not the counteroffensive. Interesting.

I'm just thinking for that. Alexander Poyachev says, what is Putin's plan for dealing with the neocons? Who knows? I don't know that he's got a plan. What I do know is that he is a very angry man. He's speech to the Defense Ministry Board. I mean, it lifted, you know, he's an incredibly disciplined, controlled person. and he's very careful what he says.

He measures his words very carefully. But for the first time, he basically showed us some of the feelings that he has about the way in which both Russia and he personally have been treated by the West. And the person he's most angry with is himself. the fact that he's allowed himself to be deceived by the West for so long. It's all there. This is not somebody who's going to be amenable to negotiations that seems to me on anything like, you know, in anything like the form that we had.

And I think he fully understands now what the neocons are and how implacable they are. And he will do everything he can. And I think most of the leadership in Russia will do everything they can to insulate Russia from whatever possible danger these neocons could inflict. Yeah. Dominique Gardett says the Western republics increasingly look like the Republica Romana after Augustus. The only difference is that instead of an imperator running the show, it's the oligarchs. It's like the Canada dries. it looks like a republic but it isn't a republic dominic you're you are always somebody who brings up these wonderful classical analogies i think you're basically correct i mean i i i prefer to you know

when i'm talking about these things to reference instead uh michel's uh theory that you know there's the iron law of oligarchy and that we have an oligarchy that's basically in control and the this is a kind of, that it always inserts itself into the political system. But certainly, we are run by an oligarchy today. In Britain we are, in the European Union, we absolutely are. And in the United States, we increasingly are. Josie S says the Ukraine-Russia conflict stems from the collapse of the Soviet Union. The question is, was the collapse of the Soviet Union legitimate?

The former leaders of Russia were naive and did not do the things. Why did none of the collective West leaders, especially the U.S. leaders, complain and try to make some agreements to avoid future problems? Thank you. Well, first of all, go and see what Putin has to say about this, because this is a he's point is that the Russians, for decades, even before the Soviet Union collapsed, we're basically reaching out to the West and that they never understood how utterly implaculate. towards them the West ultimately was that it was never really interested in meeting them halfway on anything and that's Putin's view and I can tell you for a fact it's the view of an awful lot of Russians now and as for finding some kind of deal making some kind of deal with the Russians at the end of the Cold War which would have managed the problems caused by the Soviet collapse.

But of course, the point is that the Russians thought that they had agreed such a deal. I mean, that was what the whole business about not extending NATO Eastwoods was all about, for example. They thought that they had made those deals. And then what happened was the West simply went back on it. And pretended it never made them. Exactly. Dominique Gardett says,

among the most astonishing Western impostors is that of Olaf Schultz declaring without blushing Russia's responsible for cutting off Russian gas. I know. I agree. He who made the decision to sanction Russia and who attended Biden's declaration on the destruction of Nord Stream. He is worse than Macron and Johnson. It is an exploit.

One wonders what the global South may think of the increasing nullity of Western leaders. You're absolutely right on every point. I mean, I've got nothing to add to what you've just said. Law of Attraction says, Apiedes or mele macarona. What would you choose, gentlemen, Merry Christmas? Couldabieres. Couldabieres?

Absolutely. Tish Ebb. This is Greek confectionary, by the way. Both delicious. Tish Ebb says, I love that guest of the Duran and elsewhere follow you by mentioning that. Thank you, Tish Ebb. N.V. Storm says, Merry Christmas, guys. Thank you so much for all you do.

Thank you for that. Peter says, Merry Christmas. early and much love from Yalta Crimea, Russia. Thank you, Peter. Raphael says Putin at the beginning said Russia will not be intimidated. Everything we are doing is trying to intimidate Russia, and we do not have a plan B. Exactly right. Completely true.

Elena says, what's happening with Russia and the Olympic Committee? Well, I think the Russians have basically given up with the Olympic Committee. and I agree with them. The Olympic Committee is very unhappy because the Russians are holding parallel games to the Olympic Games and they've been trying to pressure countries not to participate

but I understand that nobody's paying any attention and there'll be lots of countries participating into the alternative games and Putin, who is a sportsman, has made the point that the decision of the IOC to basically exclude Russia from the Olympic movement, which is both unprecedented and extraordinary.

And it completely and fundamentally violates the core principles of the Olympic movement, which were based on inclusivity and non-discrimination. Tatiana, thank you for that super sticker. And Nick, thank you for that super sticker. Alexander. that's everything just do one quick check as I do one quick check

Alexander any final thoughts no it's a fantastic program we're going to have Daniel many times especially now with the election the elections coming in the United States who better to keep track of what's going on Daniel McAdams who is there he's been at the belly of the beast

in the House of Representatives and has worked with and still works with Dr. Ron Paul one of the bravest political figures in America. And they have a great channel on Google and YouTube. Absolutely fantastic channel. One more question from Jaisal Bakken.

I don't trust Western governments. I must warn Russia not to trust them either. You are absolutely right, but Putin is ahead of you there because he doesn't trust them anymore. As I said, if you go to the Kremlin website, you'll see what he has to say about the way that the way he was personally deceived by them. he is very disillusioned. He's angry with himself and he's also very, very angry

with one particular individual who he's careful not to name, but it's clear that she's very much in his mind and that's Angelo of Merkel. Merkel. Why he ever trusted Merkel, of course, is another thing. If he'd asked us, we would have told him not to trust Merkel.

But there we are. He did. I don't understand why Merkel gave those interviews and admitted that Minsk was a farce. I mean, why did she have to do that? She just shouldn't have quiet. Oh, no, absolutely. I don't understand her thinking there.

Yeah. And Lavrov has said some pretty tough things to the past couple of days. Yeah. All right. We will leave it there. Alexander, everyone that's watching, have a happy Merry Christmas. We wish you all the best. Absolutely.

All right. Take care, everybody.