All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2026 - System Update - Glenn Greenwald
40:02
SHOCKING Confession by Canada's PM Mark Carney at Davos

Glenn reacts to Canadian PM Mark Carney's surprising speech at Davos.  ---------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook  

|

Time Text
Mark Carney's Shocking Davos Speech 00:15:23
All right, these are words that I genuinely never expected would ever come out of my mouth.
But yesterday, Canada's Prime Minister, Mark Carney, delivered a speech at Davos, no less, that was truly stunning and earth-shattering.
And I think will prove to be highly consequential.
And I want to make clear, I have no illusions about who Mark Carney is.
I know exactly who he is.
His entire life is basically nothing but a tribute to the values of careerism thriving solely within establishment institutions and being nothing but a Maven for status quo perpetuation, the absolute opposite of anyone interesting, disruptive, radical, or anything else.
Harvard and Oxford and Goldman Sachs and the Bank of Canada.
Just an absolute centrist, globalist.
I know exactly who Mark Carney is.
I want to be very clear that nothing that I'm saying here about how important his remarks yesterday were in any way signify that I'm an admirer of Mark Carney or that, you know, I understand that my whole life may go by for the next however many years or decades without ever uttering a single word of praise for him again.
And it's not even necessarily praise that I'm uttering here because I think a lot of what he's saying is so self-interested in.
Yet in many ways, what makes it so remarkable is how candid it is because he basically admits that.
I gave, I did a video a couple of days ago in the context of Iran and Venezuela where I talked about how when you're obviously a political journalist, you encounter all sorts of propaganda.
Sometimes it's very frustrating because it's so brazen and yet people believe it.
But the thing that has always frustrated me the most, the thing that has always driven me the craziest is the ability of the United States and U.S. media and Western institutions to convince people that the United States and their Western allies bomb other countries, invade other countries, go to war, use covert operations, engage in coups out of benevolence.
Because we're just so opposed morally and in our souls to tyranny and dictatorship that we just, we feel a compulsion to free people, to free the oppressed peoples of the world, and that we do so in accordance with universal rules of international law that not only permit but compel us to do this.
And you look at everything the United States has done, the reality of it, all of our wars and bombing, and we far more often overthrow democratically elected leaders and just install dictatorships than the other way around.
And you really wonder, how is it possible for anyone to believe that that is what the United States does, that those are the principles that drive U.S. foreign policy and warming.
And yet huge numbers of people believe it.
And I think the major reason is, is that all of Western elite culture, all of American foreign bipartisan foreign policy blob, that whole group, their stenographers and ideological allies at establishment rags like The Atlantic or The Economist or Foreign Policy or the New York Times op-ed page.
All of them constantly believe in and or at least pretend to and constantly reinforce this idea that unlike the evil countries, China and Iran and Russia, that don't believe in the rules-based international order, that just do whatever they want out of power, we are benevolent in our use of power and force and foreign policy, that we uphold the rules-based international order.
And it's such an obvious fraud and conceit that sometimes I genuinely have a hard time believing that people believe it.
Even though I understand why the relentless propaganda to which we're subjected, basically from childhood from every direction tells us to believe that.
It's a crucial part of the iconography and mythology of American and Western history.
And it all comes out of World War II and the fact that there was a component of truth to it, but hasn't had a component of truth in many decades.
Through all the wars in Iraq and Vietnam and dirty wars in Syria and Libya and the destabilization campaigns in countless countries around the world and the propping up of some of the world's most savage dictators, etc.
And this is what leads me to Mark Carney's speech yesterday at Davos, because there is this current media theme that has always focused on Donald Trump and trying to isolate Donald Trump as this singular, unprecedented evil.
That, oh, the United States always used to believe in this rules-based international order.
And now along comes Donald Trump and he's overthrowing the entire regime.
That's a very convenient, self-flattering narrative that, oh, it always used to be.
And you hear a lot of Bush Cheney operatives of all people who sent American forces to the other side of the world to invade Iraq, which wasn't attacking us, among everything else they did, with this very, oh, we all, as a bipartisan basis, used to believe in a rules-based international order.
And now Trump alone in this radical deviation from American tradition has destroyed it.
And that is one of the main media themes emerging in the context of what Trump has done in Venezuela, what he's doing in Iran, what he's threatening to do with Greenland, has threatened to annex Canada and make it the 51st state, a variety of other foreign policy actions as well, that for me are very much in line with the American tradition.
The only difference being that Trump is a little bit more honest about it.
And Prime Minister Carney, whose country, Canada, is a target of a lot of these threats.
And that's obviously the context in which he is speaking at Davos yesterday, stood up and could have given that exact speech that, oh, it's so tragic.
We've always been in the West primary believers in the rules-based international order, presidents of both parties in the U.S. and all parties in Europe.
We all believe in it.
It's one thing we hold in common.
That's our shared value.
And now, unfortunately, it's being dismantled by the current president.
He could have said that.
It's what most media outlets are saying, what most Western establishment, foreign policy entities are claiming.
But he opted not to embrace that propagandistic revisionism, that fiction.
He actually affirmatively rejected it by saying something I never thought that I would hear a leader of a major Western country, which Canada is, central to the Anglo-American Alliance and to NATO and all of that.
I thought I would never hear a centrist leader of a major Western country admit, which is that the rules-based international order is a fraud.
And it always has been, not because Donald Trump came along and dismantled it, but because it has always been a fiction.
One that he said Europe and the United Kingdom and the United States and Canada have been willing to cynically pretend is true, even though they know it's not, because it had always advanced their interests previously.
And he's basically admitting, look, it no longer does advance our interests.
We're now being threatened by the reality, not the fiction.
The fiction is that we live in a rules-based international order.
The reality has always been the powerful do whatever they want and exempt themselves from it, from all these other rules they impose on everybody else, and pretend they're acting in accordance with principle when they never do.
And we went along with this lie because for a while it protected us.
And now we see that we can be targeted by the same thing that we've been pretty with our lives.
And so it's time to admit the truth.
Maybe not the noblest of motives.
He's basically saying, yeah, we went along with the lie because it benefited us.
And now that it's not benefiting us, it's time to tell the truth.
That the whole edifice is a fraud.
Here is just, I'm going to show you a couple of excerpts because I have to say, I don't generally get shocked by things I see, especially from Western leaders speaking at Davos.
But what's going on right now with Trump and what is really, again, what differentiates him is his candor.
He refuses to pretend the United States acts in accordance with these principles that, of course, have never driven U.S. foreign policy.
We've covered that he issued a national security strategy document at the end of 2025, essentially saying we're not going to pretend anymore that we care if our allies are democratic.
We love Saudi Arabia.
We love Qatar.
We love Egypt.
We love the United Arab Emirates.
We don't care if they're oppressive.
That's not our concern.
It's not our business.
We're going to pretend that we do.
And the fact that he's making those admissions combined with saying that he wants to take Greenland from Denmark, a NATO member, a member of the EU, and has been directing that kind of language at Canada for quite a long time, has really exacerbated the genuine fears and panic, as well as the abandonment of Ukraine narrative,
the approximation of the U.S. with Russia at a time when Europe sees Russia in this, I think, extremely neurotic way.
All of this has genuinely created real tension, arguably unprecedented tension between the U.S. and Europe and other Western countries in many decades.
And this is the context for what is now happening at Davos, which had been created with this idea that it was going to be an important place for major world leaders and influencers to come and exchange ideas.
Usually it's just a bunch of self-congratulatory, empty vipidity.
But this time, because of what is perceived as a crisis by these people, it is the venue of things that are actually important.
And these kind of crises tend to produce candor.
So here's part of what Mark Carney said: kind of the nub of what he's urging the world to finally admit.
For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order.
We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability.
And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false.
That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient.
That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically.
And we knew that international law applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful.
And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system.
I mean, it's so blunt.
It's not even subtle or nuanced or euphemistic.
He's saying there's this thing we all pretended existed, the rules-based international order.
First, he said it was partially false, but then he goes on to say, Look, this was all a fiction, and we knew it was all a fiction for all these years.
But we all decided to just lie and pretend it was true because other countries suffered under it, under the fact that there was no rules-based international order.
But we got to pretend that there was one because we were benefiting from it.
So we had an interest in describing the system falsely as something benevolent, even though it never was.
It was just helping us, which is why we affirm these lies.
And then he goes on to say this: collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So we placed the sign in the window.
We participated in the rituals.
And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works.
Let me be direct.
We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
Now, a lot of people are criticizing Mark Carney for saying, look, the only reason he's now admitting this is because it used to benefit Canada, now it's not.
But that's not a criticism of Mark Carney.
He's admitting that, which I find the most remarkable part.
He's saying, yeah, we all went along with this lie because it helped us.
It was good for Canada.
And now it's not good for Canada.
So it's time to admit the truth.
Now, that phrase that he used in that clip, putting the signs in the window, was a reference to the way he began his speech, which was by, I think, very cleverly invoking Vakov Havel,
who is a hero of the Cold War, who was a dissident to Czech communism, then became the first president of the Czech Republic after Czechoslovakia obtained its independence from the Eastern Bloc after the fall of the Soviet Union, was considered a major hero to Cold Warriors and to anti-communists.
And so, for him to use his framework as the framework for his speech for a Fakarney speech, I thought was a very clever choice.
And the way in which he used it, I think was, again, a thing that you just wouldn't normally hear a major Western leader invoking.
Because what he's saying is essentially that the way in which the communist system maintained its lies is exactly how we've been maintaining the lies of this idea that those are non-existent rules-based international order in our foreign policy.
And exactly the way in which people like Habel and others caused the lives of the communist regime to collapse, we now need to start admitting the falsity.
Sustaining the Lie 00:08:32
And in a way, his speech took a major step in doing that because forever, this speech will never be undone.
This is an admission by a major The leader of a major Western country that a central prong, not just of U.S. foreign policymakers, but all these think tanks and their media outlets that they repeat over and over about what differentiates us from the rest of the world, about what makes our words and bombing campaigns noble and everybody else's that we don't like, rogue and aggressive and evil.
But the whole thing is a lie and a fiction and didn't just become one when Donald Trump got elected, but always has been.
Here's the framework that he used.
As inevitable, as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself.
And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.
Well, it won't.
So what are our options?
In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless.
And in it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?
And his answer began with a greengrocer.
Every morning, the shopkeeper places a sign in his window, workers of the world unite.
He doesn't believe it.
No one does.
But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along.
And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.
Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
Havel called this living within a lie.
The system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true.
And its fragility comes from the same source.
When even one person stops performing, when the green grocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack.
Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.
Four decades.
He's comparing the propagandistic network that has sustained U.S. and Western foreign policy for decades to the propagandistic framework that sustained Soviet and Eastern European communism for decades.
And not only is he doing that, not only is he saying the same way that communist lies were sustained is how we sustain the lies that we tell ourselves and our populations in the world about the role we play in the world.
Not only is he saying that, he's saying that the way that you wage revolution against it, the way that you tear it down, in the case of the Czech or the Polish or the East German or the Soviet store, is that one person takes the sign down and stops pretending that what everyone knows is a lie.
They pretend is in fact true and they finally say, I'm not pretending anymore.
This has always been a lie and everyone knows it.
And he's saying that's what we need to do.
And not only saying we need to do it.
His speech was action that did it.
He's saying Canada is taking the sign down.
We're not pretending anymore.
That there's this thing called the rules-based international order, that are universal principles by which we abide, but our enemies don't, that this is all a fiction and a lie.
And I do think the fact that it is coming from such an establishment show like Mark Carney makes it more effective and more consequential.
If Nigel Farage were the prime minister of the UK or Maureen Le Pen were the president of France or there was some left-wing Chompskate figure.
I mean, this is basically Chomsky's foreign policy critique laid bare.
And there were other parts of it where the same thing happened.
But, you know, then you could say, okay, it's the leader of a major country, but they elected an anti-establishment radical.
You expect an anti-establishment critique.
Again, Mark Carney, you can't find a more establishment centrist than he.
He's lived his whole life as a central banker, as a Goldman Sachs investor, someone from Harvard and Oxford, someone who has never breathed a word, a syllable of radicalism or anti-establishment disruption.
The fact that he's the one standing up and so bluntly acknowledging this truth that has been both so glaring and evident for so long, yet so taboo.
And that's often the case that the most glaring truths are the ones that are most taboo.
This is why there's a taboo on talking about the influence of the Israel lobby in the United States because it's so true.
That's where the taboo has to be strongest.
That's been the case here to watch him break that taboo deliberately and knowingly and saying he's doing it so that the whole edifice finally collapses.
That is remarkable.
Here's the last passage of his speech that I want to show you, where he basically says what he thinks the solution is going forward for Canada.
We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield them together.
Which brings me back to Havel.
What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?
Well, first, it means naming reality.
Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised.
Call it what it is.
A system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.
It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals.
When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction, but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in.
Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, it means creating institutions and agreements that function as described.
Now, do I believe that any of that's going to happen?
Do I believe that these middle powers like the UK and Germany and France and Canada are going to build a system that is actually based on universal principles that they apply equally to their allies as they do to their adversaries, which again is the Chomsky framework for foreign policy?
He's always said that his foreign policy framework is based in the very simple but compelling moral principle of the Gospels.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, basically mean that if you're going to use various principles to act against other people, you should only do so if you're comfortable with them having those principles act against you.
Mark Carney saying the solution to this is let's really get together and build a system that doesn't just pretend to believe in these things, but that actually does.
So much easier said than done.
Maybe he thinks he's earnest for the moment.
I'll believe all of that when I see it.
But again, the fact that the whole thing, the whole speech is predicated on a very explicit admission that none of what the vast majority of mainstream Western voices have been telling the world and their own populations for years about how we operate is in fact true, that it's all a lie and a fiction, and that therefore, for the first time, we should actually try and do that.
Canadian Media's Trump Narrative 00:03:10
I just believe that this will be enduringly consequential because it will always be a major part of the discourse when major powers try this again.
Now, so many media outlets, when you read the New York Times, you read Canadian media outlets, and they will depict this as essentially, of course, nothing more than an attack on Trump.
Even though he didn't use Trump's name, they're saying that he's basically lamenting that this rules-based international order is ending because of Trump.
That's so clearly not what he's saying.
He's saying that it was never a reality, and that all that Trump has done is instead of causing non-Western countries to have to live under this unjust system, is in a lot of ways now forcing countries like Canada and others in Europe to live under the same system.
And so, he's saying, I guess we now have to admit the truth since we no longer have an interest in maintaining the lie, since the lie no longer benefits us.
So, it's really not a critique of Trump per se.
Now, obviously, you know, I think it's important to note that Trump is the context here.
I mean, here's Trump.
This is from the CBC, actually.
And you see at the top, Trump shares photos of Canada, Greenland as part of the U.S. and a map.
And it showed it was kind of an AI image that Trump posted with a bunch of Western leaders in his Oval Office.
And there's a map that he's showing where not just the United States, but Canada and Greenland and Venezuela are all part of the United States and therefore covered on the map by an American flag.
So if you're a leader of Canada and you see that after the year of rhetoric or whatever that has preceded it about Canada becoming the 51st American state, how the president of the Prime Minister of Canada is really just a governor.
Of course, you're compelled to take that seriously and stand up to it.
You don't have any credibility or sovereignty as a country if you don't.
So I'm not saying it's not in any way related to Trump, but he's not, it's not a Trump-specific critique.
It's a much broader and more candid critique.
But places like the New York Times and the Atlantic and Canadian media can't grapple with that because they're the ones who have perpetrated the lie that Mark Carney is denouncing or at least exposing.
So they have to pretend it's only about Trump.
That before Trump, there really was a rules-based international order, even though what he's saying is the opposite.
Let me just give you, there's so many examples I could obviously show you that illustrate the utter fraud of American and European leaders on the one hand, claiming that they live under a rules-based international order, and on the other hand, proving that they ignore and throw away those principles the minute it becomes convenient.
As I said, the Iraq war by itself made the United States a laughingstock when it tried to go around the world and claim that there's rules that govern what we can do, given that we sent this massive army to invade Iraq based on lies, and then went around the world for the next 20 years, bombing whoever we wanted with no rules whatsoever.
U.S. Hypocrisy At Davos 00:12:36
Just abducted Maduro out of Venezuela.
What rules-based international order provides for that, even if you are in favor of it?
Threatening out a bomb Iran with no congressional approval, no UN approval, nothing.
I mean, you can be in favor of these things, but this is just an exercise of raw power.
This has nothing to do with the rules-based international order.
But here is one of the most sinister people Currently, in any kind of high office, I mean, and she has a lot of competition, primarily from other EU leaders.
She's Kazakhalis, who is the prime minister of Estonia, which is a country of about 1 million people.
She's now the vice president of the European Commission with a major role in EU foreign policy and is an absolute fanatical warmonger when it comes to Russia and the need for Europe to stand up to Russia, which in a way is understandable given that her country, Estonia, was dominated by Russia, but at the same time, her husband was involved in a major corruption scandal, making tons of money from doing business with Russia.
She's an extremely, she's like a character at a VEP, is how I would describe her.
If you ever watched that HBO show with Julia Louise Dreyfus, just like some really dumb, unhinged Eastern European leader, but constantly like belligerent.
And I think you come from this tiny little country in Estonia, and now you're like an official with the EU and you feel like you really get to kind of strut your strength.
She's like Ursa von von der Leyen or the various Green Party officials in Germany, who also are total warmongers.
She's of this train, but a little dumber and a little more extreme.
And she was also a major supporter of Israel's war in Gaza.
So as she's going around talking about the urgency of enforcing the rules-based international order when it comes to Russia, that what makes Russia so evil is they don't believe in the rules-based international order, they just invade whoever they want.
She's also simultaneously and vehemently defending Israel, which kind of points to exactly the sort of lies and fiction and hypocrisy that Mark Carney so surprisingly denounced.
Here's just a little clip showing her.
Must be realistic and principled, and it must be guided by the international law.
No country has the right to take over the territory of another, not in Ukraine, not in Greenland, not anywhere in the world.
It is clear that we are very good partners.
Israel is a very relevant trade and investment partner for the European Union.
And that was put together by the Twitter user Stahl Stanforth just to provide him credit, that juxtaposition.
But, you know, you go around and you say, nobody under the rules-based international order can take land, but we love Israel and we're very good partners with them as they seize more and more of the West Bank illegally as they destroyed all of Gaza.
This is why nobody in the world takes this seriously.
How could any sentient person take it seriously?
It's just that there's been a conspiracy of fiction among Western political and media elites to all pretend that this is true, even though anybody with the smallest amount of sentience can see that it's not, because it's been in the interest of the West to pretend it, but it's causing alienation around the rest of the world because everybody knows it's a load of crap.
You go anywhere in the world and tell someone that the United States believes in a rules-based international order and they will laugh in your face.
It'll trigger a global laughing fit.
And as I said, this is probably the thing that has frustrated me the most journalists is watching so many people either pretend to believe in it or actually believe in it, even though it's just so easy to disprove with every single thing the United States and its allies have done.
It's like cathartic to watch Mark Carney admit that for whatever reasons, whatever, however self-interested his motives might be, however little carry-through there is, just to hear somebody like him at Davos admit that is something that was just so surprising.
Here, by the way, speaking of Ursula van der Leyen, who I guess I would identify as the most contemptible World leader who's not even elected except by the parliament.
But here's the kind of thing she's, of course, always saying: here's April, here she is on April 6th, 2023.
China and the EU have the duty to uphold and promote the rules-based international order, starting with the end of the Russian invasion and withdrawal of its troops.
But of course, Ursula von der Leyen also was a major supporter of the Israeli destruction of Gaza, is in general a huge supporter of Israel in the way that only guilt-ridden Germans can be.
And so, this kind of hypocrisy, and it's even worse than hypocrisy, it's just an outright deceit and lie that drives our foreign policy.
Um, is evidence.
I could, you know, do a three-hour documentary showing you example after example like that.
Now, Trump, right as I'm recording this, and shortly before we began, uh, he went on stage to himself speak at Davos, and he did not appreciate Mark Carney's remarks.
I haven't seen Trump's whole speech, I'm sure I'll do an analysis on that.
But here is the excerpt that I did see where he responds to Mark Carney by basically telling Canada that they better keep their mouth shut if they want to continue to survive as a country going to be defending Canada.
Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way.
They should be grateful also, but they're not.
I watched your prime minister yesterday, he wasn't so grateful that they should be grateful to us.
Canada, Canada lives because of the United States.
Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.
All right, now, I'm not even saying that that's particularly horrifying, it's not surprising.
It's classic Trump, but it certainly has nothing to do with the rules-based.
What's the rules-based international order that says if you give a speech criticizing us, we'll stop defending you and your survival will be at risk.
That's just the exertion of pure power politics, great power politics.
Again, you can believe in that, and this is what I'm always saying: like if you want to bomb Iran and change its government, please don't pretend that it's because you care about the rights of protesters to go out in the street and have civil liberties because so many of our greatest allies, quote unquote, are the most oppressive.
Just admit it's because Iran is a government that you think thwarts Israeli and U.S. geopolitical interests.
And so, you want to take it down for that reason.
Spare everybody the bullshit about your humanitarianism because it's not real.
Just skip over that.
Trump, to his credit, mostly skips over that.
And I think it's actually his candor that's kind of contagious and causing candor, even in people like Mark Carney, about what's going on.
Last point on this: one of the people who spoke at Davos, or at least was at Davos, and was interviewed by Fox News, a Fox News host, Maria Bartoma, was asked about Iran and what the United States has done to the people of Iran to cause extreme economic suffering, the people that we claim to be so concerned about through the use of sanctions.
And again, he was very candid about what we have done to the Iranian people.
Listen to what he said.
Say about sanctions, something else you've been working on, of course.
What are you planning there in terms of Iran and the impact there?
Do sanctions actually work?
And the same question with regard to 500% secondary sanctions or tariffs on countries who purchase energy products from Russia.
Okay, so two things there: there are treasury sanctions.
And if you look at a speech that I gave at the Economic Club of New York last March, I said that I believe the Iranian currency was on the verge of collapse, that if I were an Iranian citizen, I would take my money out.
President Trump ordered Treasury and our OFAC division, Office of Foreign Asset Control, to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it's worked because in December, their economy collapsed.
We saw a major bank go under.
The central bank has started to print money.
There is a dollar shortage.
They are not able to get imports.
And this is why the people took to the street.
So this is economic state crap.
No shots fired.
And things are moving in a very positive way here.
I mean, that's what the United States does and is able to do because the United States still wields the dollar as the world's reserve currency on which the financial system depends.
There are many major countries trying to get away from that for exactly the reason that it gives the United States so much immense unilateral power to just suffocate entire countries whenever it wants.
And the United States has been doing that to the very countries we claim so much to care about in terms of the people.
We've been suffocating and cutting Cuba off from the world economy for seven decades.
We did the same thing in Venezuela, in Iran, in Syria.
And the Treasury Secretary there is just admitting, yeah, we collapse their currency.
We cause immense economic suffering.
Same in Venezuela.
It doesn't mean that these countries also have mismanaged their economy, but when you have the United States as a singular power able to just suffocate you and punish people if they do business with you, which is what we're doing, and isolate you from the world economy and cut you off and isolate all of your economic engines to the point that they break.
Again, you can argue, yeah, that's a good use of American power.
We should be doing that.
But it has nothing to do with a rules-based international order.
What are the rules?
What's this rules-based international order that says the United States can use its singular power as the holder of the reserve currency to cause extreme economic deprivation, suffering, lack of hospital products, sometimes lack of food in major countries because the United States doesn't like the government that we impose for years and decades because it really works.
The whole world sees this.
The whole world knows that there's no such thing as a rules-based international order.
The only people who believe that there is are people who work in U.S. and Western media and people who work in U.S. and Western foreign policymaking.
And some of them don't actually believe it.
They pretend to believe it for the reason Mark Carney said that it's beneficial to them.
Others are probably just so lacking in critical skills.
They've immersed themselves in this world for so long that has told them this exists that they actually do believe it.
Like writers at the Atlantic, I think, believe it because they're just such propagandists, but also like just such establishment whores that they actually do believe it.
And whether someone says it because they're cynically pretending to believe in it because it's their own interest, as Mark Carney said, Western leaders have done, or whether because they're just kind of servants of the royal court and trumpet whatever principles or propagandistic views they're supposed to in order to have their own career advance.
And there's a lot of that, each of that, and many people have both.
Really ultimately doesn't matter.
The reality is, is that this fiction, this lie, this falsehood has been central for so long to the way in which American and Western countries deceive, not the rest of the world, the rest of the world sees this, deceives their own population.
Mark Carney's Bold Truth 00:00:40
And so to have Mark Carney as kind of unremarkable and banal, incapable of his own horrible acts, just like an establishment, uncharismatic figure, to have him, of all people, stand up and speak that truth so directly and so bluntly at a place like Davos in front of world cameras the day before Trump spoke.
I know people are going to want to bury it.
You're already seeing the Western media pretend he didn't say it, that he was just about a critique of Trump, but I do believe this is going to have lasting repercussions, or at least I intend to do everything in my power.
Export Selection