All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 17, 2025 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
42:31
The West has Lost Hegemonic Dominance - An interview with Col. Douglas Macgregor
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
If you read the Constitution carefully, it's really about what the government cannot do to us.
It's not about what the government's powers are.
We do need new uh negotiated agreements with many, many countries.
Terranson, you know this from experience, are really defensive mechanisms.
These tariffs were designed to punish people.
And as a result, the Chinese said, well, thank you, go fly a kite, because quite frankly, the Chinese don't need us as much as we need them.
Welcome everybody to today's interview.
We are featuring a fan favorite and one of my favorite guests, who is just an extraordinary man who has uh great love for this constitutional republic and is working every day to try to educate people about how we can preserve what made America truly great from the founding vision uh without losing our country to authoritarianism or tyranny or economic destruction or some of the other factors.
Our guest is Colonel Douglas McGregor.
Uh welcome, Colonel, to the show today.
It's always an honor, sir, to have you back on.
Hey, good to see you, Mike.
It's good to see you.
And uh I want to start off with the uh your reaction to Attorney General Pam Bondi uh yesterday, I'm sure you saw this.
Her saying that hate speech is essentially going to be a crime in America.
She's going, she said the DOJ is going to target you and going to come after you if you engage in hate speech.
What's your reaction to that?
Uh you know, I I uh would love to know how we define hate speech, because so often somebody says something that the people in power don't particularly care for and they misconstrue it as some sort of form of hate hate speech.
So, you know, it's like everything else.
What what does she really mean?
Uh and I think she stirred a hornet's nest.
I think we're gonna have quite a debate about what constitutes what she's talking about and you know, what are the limits on government power.
I mean, you mentioned at the beginning, constitutional republic.
If you read the constitution carefully, it's really about what the government cannot do to us.
People don't realize that.
It's not about what the government's powers are.
Everything in it, as you read through it, is designed to protect us from the government.
And so Pam Bondy scares me a little bit because I see her as someone who likes to be in power.
Yeah.
Yeah, and uh Trump is seemingly aligned with her on this point.
Now he has been, of course, uh mistreated and lied about by the New York Times and others.
He's announced uh announced a new lawsuit against the New York Times.
Uh the entire deep state apparatus was aligned against Trump to lie about him with the Russia collusion hoax and many, many other things.
We get that.
But I agree with you, Colonel.
The answer is not to censor more speech from what the right wants to censor.
And isn't there a risk that this could be used to uh criminalize criticism of Israel?
Well, of course.
And of course, and you know, unfortunately, President Trump has hitched his wagon to that particular star at this point, which is unfortunate.
Uh so he may have a blind spot when it comes to understanding what you just described.
I hope not, but uh that's rather w where I see him headed.
Well, that's clearly where the donors uh want to push things, is uh silencing, you know, any any criticism, legitimate or or otherwise.
But let's shift gears to the economic situation in America.
Gold hit a new record high.
It's just at $3,700 an ounce, which means the dollar, the dollar's purchasing power is clearly collapsing rapidly.
You've spoken a lot about the economic crisis that you believe we may be facing soon.
Can you speak to us, uh give us an update on what your thinking is or about that topic?
Well, you know, uh, I should tell everybody to whom I listen when it comes to these matters.
And I try to listen to a variety of different people.
James Ricards is obviously one.
Luke Groman is another.
Uh there are a number of really smart people out there, good financial analysts, Alistair McLeod, who really covers the gold market globally, but from his vantage point in London.
How about George Gammon?
You like George Gammon?
Yeah, uh they all have something to offer.
I mean, you if you listen to them carefully, you're gonna benefit from it.
I don't have a whole lot to add to what they've already said.
But anybody who thinks that we are not in free fall as an economy right now is must be on some form of drug because I I really think we're in a lot of trouble.
I think the financial system is extremely fragile.
I think the banks are running scared.
Uh the dollar, of course, is uh as you point out, is not only weak, but the world is de-dollarizing.
They're trying to do business at anything but the dollar.
And you now have the emergence of BRICS, which is building parallel institutions to compete with our financial system, which is frankly antiquated and increasingly rejected.
I wish Donald Trump and his uh administration would focus on these things right now, as opposed to the Middle East or what's happening in Ukraine or anything else, because frankly, if we go under financially, and I think that's a very distinct possibility and go into a serious economic crisis, which will compare favorably with the depression that we went through in the 1930s.
No one's going to give a damn about what happens beyond the borders of this country.
Yeah, really good point.
And the situation domestically, especially for the younger generations is getting, I think, pretty uh pretty desperate right now.
Very difficult to afford a home, for example.
Uh I don't have the news story in front of me, but I saw it this morning.
There's a business group in America, like a chamber of commerce type of group that is pleading with Trump to stop the tariffs, which is uh these tariffs are destroying the supply chain.
And I I feel that also as a business owner as well.
It looks like uh Bessent is announcing there's going to be another deal with China, which means that the tariffs that Trump will keep in place are largely tariffs against so-called U.S. allies, like Japan and like India, for example.
So why, in your view, you know, why why are these tariffs in place largely targeting American allies, but giving a pass to China, not that I support tariffs on anybody, I support free trade, but why why are we punishing our allies in your view?
Well, first of all, I I don't have an easy answer to that question.
What I think I can do is go back to Trump's first term.
And if you go back and listen to the kinds of things he said then, he did state something that was absolutely accurate, that most of the trade arrangements that we reached between ourselves and the countries around the world that were either allied with us or aligned with us and hosted U.S. forces in some capacity, whether it was uh naval, air or army, didn't make any difference.
That the original trade arrangements uh were very, very favorable uh in so in one respect to the people we were working with.
First of all, they were in bad shape.
Remember, the rest of the world was largely in ruins economically and financially after the second world war.
And in the 50s or the 60s, as these alliances were developing, everyone was desperate to have access to our markets.
So we traded their desperation for access to the markets for hosting our forces around the world as part of the containment strategy.
Well, all of that is gone away now.
And we do need new uh negotiated agreements with with many, many countries.
No one disputes that at all.
But it's not a question of harming someone else and punishing someone else because we don't like the arrangement.
We simply need to negotiate new arrangements that are hopefully going to be mutually beneficial to us.
And if we can't find a mutually beneficial outcome, then we simply need to walk away.
And that's not unusual in global commerce.
If you if you can't get a deal on the table that both sides profit from in some positive way, then there's no point in having a deal.
I think these things were still on President Trump's mind when he looked at the use of tariffs.
But tariffs, and you know this from experience, are really defensive mechanisms.
Normally, you impose a tariff to protect an industry that is in an early stage of development.
We did that a great deal in our history to get our industries off the ground, regardless of what they were: steel, agricultural, any number of different things.
These tariffs were designed to punish people.
And for some reason, he unleashed this offense against everyone, as you point out.
So suddenly we're we're bombarding uh the British, the Germans, the French with nasty tariffs, the Japanese, uh The Philippines, everyone out there, didn't make any any sense, and it was a serious mistake.
And I think it's backfired on us.
What we should have been interested in doing, first and foremost, is talking to the Chinese, because our largest problem has been this trade deficit with China.
And we should have sat down and been honest and said, look, this arrangement that we have is not working for us.
In fact, the dollar is a problem right now.
And we need to come to some sort of new arrangement and accommodation.
But that's not what we did.
We went in, we were arrogant, we were nasty, we were offensive.
That was true for the Biden administration, and it's true at the beginning of the Trump administration.
And as a result, the Chinese said, well, thank you, go fly a kite, because quite frankly, the Chinese don't need us as much as we need them.
Well, and what's interesting, India.
India did much the same thing.
And I'd love your reaction to that, where previously, and I think in Trump's mind, this is still the 1980s America that everybody must bow down to and obey.
And so he's barking demands around the world and finding out that many countries are saying no.
We would rather just find new partners to trade with, and India is one of those countries.
What do you make of Modi and now India becoming best friends with uh Russia and China, or at least let's say restoring trade with Russia and China because of what Trump is doing.
Well, I think first of all, we have to understand that India has always had a very good relationship with Russia, virtually from the moment of independence.
So they're not restoring anything.
Uh the Indians have invested very heavily in all the Russian military technology.
The Russians have worked closely with the Indians to build their forces and structure their defense.
Uh you know, the Russians sell enormous quantities of oil and gas to the Indians.
The largest Russian refinery in the world is actually in India.
It was built by the Russians by Rosneft, and that has been refining uh oil to produce fuel uh of all types and kinds, much of which is then subsequently sold to Europe.
This is not some sort of uh clever ruse on the part of India.
It's a matter of necessity.
They need to trade with Russia.
Japan needs to trade with Russia.
Japan is buying oil and gas from Russia.
They're very in very close proximity to each other.
Even during World War II, when the Soviets were fighting uh the Germans and and supposedly allied with us, which of course was a lot of nonsense, they we they received so much oil from us free of charge that they actually resold quantities of it to the Japanese who were fighting us.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have to understand that nation states are never going to move beyond the limits of their own interests.
Nation states around the world are going to do what is in their interest.
India would like to have good relations with us.
But if the price of good relations with us means that they have to poison their relationship with Russia, forget it.
They don't need it.
They're gonna walk.
That isn't because they hate us.
You know, very few people in the United States know that the Indian military has cooperated with us very, very closely over many decades.
In fact, you can make an argument that their operations at sea in the Indian Ocean, near Africa, all the way across to Indonesia has been an enormous benefit to us because those are areas where we really haven't had to have a major naval presence.
Uh-huh.
They have filled that square.
They filled that void, if you will.
They went after the Somali pirates.
Uh so we were free to go elsewhere.
And the other thing is that they have conducted more joint exercises with us as a foreign country than anyone else on the planet.
If you, if you look at those things, what are you doing punishing India for pursuing its own national interest in trade and doing business with Russia?
It's a dumb idea.
It has no chance of success.
So effectively, you were talking about supply chains earlier.
This is hugely important to supply chains.
You know, people will then construct new supply chains.
You know, supply chains are like habits.
You build new habits based on behavior.
Supply chains emerge over time in response to demand.
Well, I want to ourselves badly in that area.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
That's exactly where I wanted to go next.
And in in this issue of supply chains, and uh we're talking about China and Russia now, the new pipeline that's been announced, the power of Siberia too, which would pipe gas from the Yamal fields in northwest Russia.
Those fields used to supply gas, cheap energy to Germany to power Germany's industrial base, which is in a state of collapse.
Now that pipeline, the construction has just been approved.
It's going across Mongolia.
It's going to go down southeast across Russia through Mongolia into northern China to power China's data centers, to power China's manufacturing industrial base.
So talk to us, Colonel, about the shift of uh industrial power and energy power and what it means for economies, the shift from cheap energy going to Western Europe to now cheap energy from Russia going to northern China.
I don't know if you saw it or not, but on X, I published something yesterday, and uh it talks about the flood of resources and money and wealth moving east in the direction of India and China, other countries and East Asia, as a result of our behavior and decisions that we've been making.
And I compared it to 1492.
People normally think when you hear 1492 said, oh, well, that's when Columbus discovered America.
Well, that's true.
It's also when the Moorish occupation or the Muslim occupation of Spain ended and they were thrown out.
But 1492 is really much more important because it changed the direction of the flow of wealth and trade.
Suddenly, this thing we call the Silk Road that reached from China all the way to the Middle East and then ultimately to Europe was effectively broken off.
The trade dried up, the flow of money ended.
And with the flow of money, so did development.
So the entire Islamic world was plunged in the subsequent centuries into a kind of financial, industrial, intellectual poverty.
At the same time, fueled by all the gold and spices coming out of Latin America and South America that poured into Spain, then eventually into France, the Netherlands, and then finally to Great Britain, created this enormous maritime supply chain structure that ends up making Great Britain and frankly the United States the most wealthy and powerful forces on the planet.
Well, this is kind of what's happening right now, and I'm afraid the tariff war has reinforced this drift away from us.
And you have to add to it the sort of mismanagement of our economy, this ridiculous indebtedness, the destruction of our own dollar by us, not by anybody else.
You add all of those things together, and we're seeing another dramatic shift that unless we change our behavior, unless we get out of this business of bullying other countries, and that means not just with military power, but also financially and economically, then we're going to end up in a situation not very different different from the Ottoman Empire that effectively was destroyed once you had this reorientation of trade in Europe away from the Middle East.
And you mentioned the oil and gas and so forth that was coming out of Russia to Germany.
Everybody who is in in business, as you know, wants something.
It's called stability.
You want some degree of predictability.
Well, the Germans had that with the Russians.
The Russians had that with the Germans.
By the way, the Russians and the Germans as people have been trading with each other very successfully, I would argue for at least 300 years.
You know, in 1914, when war broke out between Russia, Tsaris Russia, and Imperial Germany, each country was the other's number one trading partner.
And in 1941, when the Germans turned around and attacked Russia, the Soviet Union at that point, the Soviet Union and Germany were each other's number one trading partner.
So this is not a new phenomenon.
But I think the Russians finally said this is hopeless.
You know, we we've got to have uh uh a customer that we can rely on, and that customer right now is China, and China is in the business right now of creating, building not only infrastructure, but now the largest manufacturing base in the world.
And arguably uh China is now the world's largest economy.
Particularly if you look at uh purchasing power, uh purchasing power parity, as they call it, the three Ps.
In those terms, China is much larger.
It's about 29% of the world, world economy.
We're substantially less around uh 19%, I think at this point.
India is maybe at 11 or 12%, but when you add India and China together, they're twice the size of us.
We don't seem to understand what's happening.
We we we live in this fantasy world where nothing changes, where we remain permanently on top.
Well, we're not.
And the supply chains that you're talking about, they seek stability, predictability.
They want to know that they're going to be routinely exercised, utilized, exploited.
We're not doing that.
We're providing the opposite.
If anything, the Trump administration is inducing chaos in the markets.
Absolutely.
And Colonel, can I add too that in my analysis, as we see the rise of automation in the factories, AI robots becoming more capable, although it's going to take time, it's clear that China has the manufacturing dominance in robots because of the actuators of the motors and the rare earth minerals like neodymium that's necessary for the motors.
So in fact, I mean it's an inescapable conclusion.
The first nation to benefit from widespread scaling up of automation is going to be China, not the United States.
Not anybody, not Europe, it's going to be China.
And so China's cost of manufacturing will actually fall dramatically thanks to automation.
And the U.S. will lag years behind that in terms of just getting the robots.
Well, you know, I mentioned that something very similar to someone who's in the business uh let's put it this way as a business analyst, does a lot of work for the Fortune 500 corporations.
He said, But come on, Doug, you need to understand that we're we're much more innovative.
We can do so much more with what we have.
And I pointed out to him that if you look at the innovations of the last hundred years, if you go from 1870 to 1970, arguably we led the world in inventions and innovations.
But an awful lot of that innovation, in fact, the majority of it depended upon assembly lines.
If you're not building anything, if you don't have factories with assembly lines, and I'm not talking about uh primitive things necessarily, I'm just talking about all sorts of things, whether it's microcircuitry or you're pointing out robotics, whatever it is.
If you don't manufacture something in great quantities, you tend not to have any innovation because it's the people who are doing the work of building things that innovate.
Well, where are all the people that used to build things in the United States?
Well, yeah, exactly.
And who in America really wants to work in a factory any longer?
You know, certainly not Americans.
And let me point out another example, just to reinforce what you said.
You know, China is clearly leading the world in the number of STEM graduates.
China is dominating in about 60 out of 65 key technologies for the world, including robotics, including material science, uh, including uh rare earth extraction technologies, by the way.
And, you know, on top of that, China has five times as many people almost as the United States, as does India.
Together, India and China have almost three billion people.
I mean, think about that, right?
It's it's massive.
And when when automation comes to those people, it amplifies their efforts.
And, you know, I look, I I know the Chinese people very well.
I lived in Taiwan for for years.
And I know that Chinese people are diligent, they are intelligent, they are dedicated, and they are innovators.
If given the opportunity, they can innovate.
And I think Trump is making a huge mistake in trying to think that we can bully China into compliance with our way of doing things.
What do you say?
Well, no, I I think you've hit the nail on the head.
The sad part is that those things that you just mentioned used to characterize our labor force.
If you go back and look at the depression, we had at the time the largest skilled labor force in the world.
And when we could not pay off our debt when we were in over in over our heads, we effectively defaulted twice under Franklin Roosevelt, once in 34, and I think again in 36.
We called it restructuring the debt.
But one of the reasons that we could restructure the debt was that everybody knew we had two things.
First of all, we had this highly skilled labor force with a good work ethic that was intelligent and educated and capable.
And then secondly, we had this vast uh underexploited manufacturing base.
In other words, we had factories.
There may not have been a lot happening in them at the time, but everybody knew that the factories were there.
And so people said, fine, we know the United States is going to bounce back.
Well, today people don't think we're going to bounce back very fast because we are lacking in those two areas.
Areas where China is now leading.
Now, our position is not hopeless, uh, Mike, and this is something Americans need to understand.
But you're talking about a restructuring of our society, the way we live, the way we do business.
And if you look at our educational system, it's catastrophic.
We are not providing a path to employment.
One of the great advantages of the German scientific industrial base, it was so productive and successful until we we uh encouraged them to commit suicide and cut themselves off from the Russians and in terms of cheap energy.
All of the major corporate bodies like Ziemens or VW or or any number of them, but a lot of chemical uh corporations and companies, some of which have been around for over 100 years and are now going bankrupt and going out of business.
They always had ties to local schools, trade schools.
If they needed engineers and technicians, they went to the schools and said, we'll provide instructors.
We'll help you prepare these people.
So when someone graduated from the school system, they could go straight from where they were in school into one of these companies or corporations and have a job.
We don't do that.
And it has to happen.
We've got to get the private sector interested in the quality of the human capital they're drawing on.
Yeah.
And we we don't do that.
We're we haven't incentivized it.
It can be done, but we don't need another flashy hot air program where the president or somebody else stands there and says, see, this is great, I'm doing these wonderful things.
We need the real thing because this takes years.
Well, this is not something you snap your fingers and make happen.
It strikes me that a lot of the programs that Trump has announced, the foreign investment programs, are mostly things like data centers, where there will be very few humans actually working, uh, a lot of automation, and of course, the data centers are just computer systems churning out AI models and things like that.
Let me give you an opportunity to mention your upcoming event.
It's called the National Conversation.
And I believe it's what, October 4th in Dallas, Texas, right?
Yeah, we uh we talked about this before the program began, and originally uh we were going to have a very large event with three to four hundred people, but for reasons of security in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's unfortunate death or assassination, I guess would be a better word.
Uh a lot of people expressed concern about security in Dallas, and so we decided we would postpone probably into the spring the large scale portion of this, but we will have a VIP reception and a VIP dinner, and we still have some tickets available for that, and that'll be a group of people of about 30 to 40.
Uh our idea, though, it remains the same.
And the idea was that we want to bring in a panel of people.
We, you know, I asked Judge Napolitano, he's a well-known figure.
His legal expertise is unchallenged, somebody you can talk about the Constitution, about the legal system and where we're headed.
And then Natalie Brunel, I don't know if you've had her on, but she's a really a brilliant young financial analyst.
She understands the crypto uh issue very, very well.
Wanted to have her for a different perspective from someone who is much younger and is looking at the issues that you're mentioning very differently from, say, my generation.
And then we invited this Dr. Olga Rivazi.
She's a very fine professor.
She teaches at the university, collegiate level in Florida, uh, has a lot of experience, particularly in European affairs, international relations.
And we we fleshed out a program of of questions, you know, do what's the solution to our financial condition if we disband the Fed.
Does that help anything or does that make any difference?
You know, what do we do about uh a population that has a working class that is not adequate for the needs of modern industrial production?
I mean, a lot of people don't know it, but the gentleman that owns on Taiwan the manufacturing facility for the microcircuitry, which everyone in China, Japan, Korea, and the United States wants to buy from.
Uh, he told uh the president in confidence he was uncomfortable about building a factory.
I think at the time it was Arizona in that particular area, because he said, I don't think you have the human capital we need.
I mean, that's correct.
We need trained workers, the educated workers capable of performing the tasks.
Well, that's pretty disappointing stuff, but that's what we are.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but I I have to ask you uh is there are there streaming tickets available for your event?
Can you know can people tune in online?
Well, that's a good question.
We haven't set that up yet.
And if that becomes possible, we'll let you know.
Again, we have been overwhelmed by the demand for much tighter and more reliable security conditions.
Uh you know, Charlie, what Charlie Kirk's death really is a wake-up call for a lot of us.
Well, let me let me offer this.
Uh the website is thhnationalconversation.org.
And if you want to stream it, I can have my team work with your team to get you streamed on.
I mean, if you want to stream it for free, or parts of it for free, you could stream it on Rumble and Brighton and some other platforms at the same time.
Or if if you want to, you know, uh have it streamed for a feed later, we'd love to help you just just as a friend to help you figure out how to do that if that's something you want to do.
I think that's that's tremendous.
And uh when this is over, can I have somebody call you that's organizing this?
And I think that's a great idea.
And it's something that we talked about with the larger audience, but when we went down to probably 30 or 40 people instead of 400, I think it got lost in the discussion, but I I think it would still be valuable.
Well, I think that the public would love to hear the speeches by your your esteemed speakers, and if that could just be packaged up as a seminar or an event with you know good quality video, good quality audio, especially.
And in addition, there are all kinds of things that we can do.
For example, we can run the transcripts through AI and we can do editorial coverage and we can do translations and things like that.
So we can we can talk after the show if that's something that you'd like our help on, just offering it.
Um you've gone through a lot of trouble to get these great speakers together, and we want to help amplify that as much as possible.
Um you mentioned Charlie Kirk, and I'd love your reaction to the phenomenon that we're all now witnessing, which is seemingly the Trump administration is emboldened to be more aggressive at going after perceived leftist or you know, there's a transgender community, I suppose, or group that's currently apparently being targeted.
Uh I'm I'm not asking you like who you think shot Charlie Kirk.
Uh we'll probably never know, but what do you think of the ramifications of this event and how it's going to reshape uh culture and law enforcement in our country?
I think our top priority has to be as a as a nation to fight tenaciously for free speech.
Free speech is the wellspring of our rights, our liberties.
When you, you know, as somebody used to say all the time the Second Amendment makes all the other amendments possible, your right to bear arms.
I I think free speech is in the same category.
I'm very uncomfortable with any form of censorship at all.
I'm sorry that some people are offended that that's inevitable in a free society, but we have to have it.
And so I'm very, very, very fearful of any sort of new uh law or guideline that may restrict free speech.
And that may not be popular in Washington.
I know lots of people on various sides of every issue are very, very busy trying to silence their opposition.
I'm not part of that.
So the short answer is as long as we fight for free speech and we keep it, I'm happy.
If we infringe upon it, then I think we're in trouble as a nation.
And we're also coexisting in a world with Great Britain, for example, or Australia, which uh two nations that absolutely abhor free speech, that that have weaponized their crackdown on so-called hate speech or disinformation, to the point where if you crack a joke about you know the health minister of Germany being obese, you might go to jail.
Well, they have a different history.
You know, people really don't understand the history of the United States.
And we had this thing we call a revolution, which was really a rebellion against the authority of London and the crown over us.
Uh we didn't care to become a colony that was de-industrialized and existed to provide uh unfinished goods and uh resources to the mother country that could then turn around and resell them to us as finished products.
We didn't like that.
But we were also something else.
We forget that this country that we live in, it's really a product of the English civil wars, which should really be called the British Civil Wars.
And this was the struggle for Cromwell and the and the Protestant Reformation.
The things that came out of that that settled New England are all bound up with these rights and privileges.
And ultimately what we do is we built a society in this country and then decided that we wanted to become an independent nation.
In other words, we were already effectively a state.
We were 13 states, but they all had similar constitutions, similar uh bodies of uh parliamentary discussion and so forth.
They didn't have any of that.
And so the experience that we had in this country of, you know, I always like to tell the story of uh man named Dickinson who was from Pennsylvania, and he was very loyal to the Crown, as most people were at the time.
They saw great benefits to that.
But he fought and fought and fought inside the uh Congress in Philadelphia, uh the Continental Congress against any sort of declaration of independence until the British Army occupied his house.
Gosh, that was a real wake-up call.
And suddenly Dickinson said, Oh, you know, I can't tolerate this.
This is unacceptable.
That's the sort of experience that we had.
And those things led to the Bill of Rights, they led to the Constitution.
The rationale for all the things that are in there begin back in the 1600s and run all the way up to the American Revolution.
In fact, you can draw a straight line from Cromwell to George Washington to Abraham Lincoln.
And I would say that uh those three men taken together are the foundational pillars, if you will, of the United States and our republic.
Well, I guess you can't replicate that in Australia or Canada.
They didn't have a That's true.
And I guess we'll have to thank Dickinson for the Third Amendment, then uh it became apparent why we needed that.
Um Last question for you today.
Let's talk about Ukraine.
Um where do you think the resolution might be?
Trump said today that Ukraine is going to have to make a deal.
Yes, that's been obvious for a long time.
Uh how do you think this ends up getting finalized or resolved ultimately?
Well, I listened to President Trump today and I was deeply saddened because he repeated all the sort of fictitious nonsense that came out of Biden's mouth.
Uh, you know, well, there were 8,000 people killed in the last month, and uh most of them were Russians, But you know, still we need to end the war.
This nonsense.
The Russian casualties are so low right now, they're in sometimes in double digits, sometimes in single digits.
The Ukrainians are being slaughtered by the bushel.
And the 1.7 to 1.8 million dead Ukrainians on the battlefield.
We're just talking about Ukrainian soldiers, dwarfs the probably uh 120,000 dead that the Russians have sustained.
I'm not saying the Russians haven't taken losses, but the difference is profound.
He doesn't seem to be hearing that, or he's chosen not to believe it.
So he thinks that the Russians are the aggressor, and from the very beginning, everything we did in Ukraine was designed to build this Ukrainian army to attack Russia.
And if you listen to Biden's statements, as soon as the war gets underway, he says over and over and over again, we're going to break Russia.
We're going to remove this man Putin.
I mean, these things were not lightly stated.
They were real aims.
But Trump doesn't seem to get it.
He doesn't seem to understand this, or he's chosen a different path.
So as a result, I would say we are increasingly irrelevant to the to the resolution of the war.
I think we're on the outside looking in.
The Europeans are in a lot of trouble right now.
The British economy is in free fall.
I think it's crashing badly.
Just look at their bond market.
Hundreds of thousands of people on the streets, and they're not worried about fighting Russians in eastern Ukraine, but they certainly want to get rid of Mr. Starmer and his government.
You have something similar in France, and I think you're going to see the same thing now in Germany.
The nationalist parties that are about Britain first, France first, Germany first, are all going to come to power.
This is the end of globalism in Europe.
I think Putin knows that, and I, as a result, I think he's exercised a lot of restraint.
There's nothing to stop the Russian military from crossing the upper river and marching west.
He doesn't want to do that.
He wants to see a neutral Ukrainian state emerge that has nothing to do with NATO, doesn't harbor any foreign troops, and presents no threat to Russia, just as we would react in a very similar way to uh foreign forces in uh Mexico, especially if they came over and tried to build up a million-man Mexican army for the purpose of attacking us.
We wouldn't tolerate that either.
He doesn't seem to get that.
So I think ultimately this entire conflict will end on terms that Russia sets.
The Russians will determine what it looks like when it's over.
And I think that the countries that border Ukraine, and we're talking principally about Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, those countries will have to sit down with Ukraine and Russia and hammer out the final borders.
Germany will probably have a role in that too, because I'm assuming they'll have a new government that will look favorably upon a way to end this conflict.
But it's back to where we started, Mike.
What's most important to us as Americans right now?
What happens in eastern Ukraine, or what is happening right now in the southwest, in the northwest, in the northeast and the southeast.
I think it's what's happening inside the United States.
How many jobs we create, how we are cultivating the growth of industry.
What are we doing about agriculture?
Talk about tariffs, those have had a catastrophic impact on agriculture.
And you mentioned earlier rare earths, which I think is very important.
We've known this for decades.
We're desperately dependent upon rare earths in the military industry, but across the boards, communications, everything.
What have we done about it?
Nothing.
Do we have rare earths?
Yes, and we have all the rare earths you could possibly need up in Canada.
Have we built a rare earth refinery?
No.
So if you want to refine your rare earths, you know, you can go to the Chinese and ask them to do it.
Or you can go to Kazakhstan in Central Asia.
They have a refinery what is that?
That's insane.
We should have our own refinery here in North America to handle this.
But these things haven't happened because there is no long-term strategy of any kind.
No strategy for the military, no strategy for the American private sector, no strategy for industry, nothing for agriculture.
Everything is impulse driven.
And President Trump is very impulsive.
And he moves from event to event to event.
He's very focused on optics.
He's very focused on uh sort of getting a win for him and for his administration.
We need long-term, coherent strategic thinking.
We're not getting any of it.
We are absolutely not getting that.
And uh history is going to show that it's a terrible mistake for this nation to not look ahead further into the future.
Uh, Colonel, it's always a pleasure to have you on.
Let me give out your website.
It's DouglasMcGregor.com.
Uh yeah, DouglasMcGregor.com.
There it is.
And uh Colonel, also want to give out your your event website, uh thenational conversation.org coming up.
Some VIP tickets are available, uh, but not the the general admission tickets because of security concerns.
Uh Colonel, I just want to thank you for your time today.
It's always an honor to have you on.
Hey, thank you, Mike.
Appreciate it very much.
All right, we appreciate you.
Uh God bless you and take care now.
Same.
Bye-bye.
Bye.
All right, everybody.
That was Colonel Douglas McGregor, just an extraordinary American.
Uh, always an honor to have him on the show.
Uh, thank you for watching.
Feel free to share this video on other platforms and channels.
I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brightion.com.
And remember that every interview I do here is also used to train our AI engine, which is at Brighton.ai, and it's free.
So if you want an AI engine that is trained on reality, uh literally thousands of different interviews, not just me, but from others and uh hundreds of millions of pages of transcripts and articles and so much more, uh, mostly from the alternative media, you'll find that at Brighton.ai.
So uh thank you for your support.
Thank you for watching.
God bless you all.
Take care.
Coco Energize, a delicious blend of organic cocoa, maca, and mushrooms for clean lasting energy.
▲
Export Selection