Health Ranger - Mike Adams - BBN, Sep 18, 2025 – KIMMEL DOWN! While Trump declares WAR on ANTIFA terror groups

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 18, 2025 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams

02:20:22

BBN, Sep 18, 2025 – KIMMEL DOWN! While Trump declares WAR on ANTIFA terror groups

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, all right, welcome to Brighteon Broadcast News for Thursday, September 18th, 2025.
	I'm Mike Adams.
	Thank you for joining me today.
	And, you know, I've been predicting for many years that the United States of America, as we know it, would cease to exist by the end of 2025.
	I've had that prediction on the books for, I don't know, six or seven years.
	And I've said that when I say cease to exist as we know it, I mean there's going to be some kind of fracturing, some kind of maybe secession, maybe a regional civil war, maybe a breakup, you know, of states, maybe the formation of new regional nation states, maybe the collapse of the dollar and the end of Washington, D.C. control over the states, you know, something like that.
	And I've often wondered, especially this year, I've often wondered if, you know, what could possibly make that prediction true?
	It just didn't seem likely.
	And often my predictions are too early.
	That is sometimes the case.
	And so, you know, I was thinking, well, maybe it's going to be next year or the year after.
	And then Charlie Kirk got murdered.
	And now you can really see the fracture.
	And I'm not claiming that this is a confirmation of my prediction.
	I'm predicting something far more serious will happen.
	But now we can see the division that will lead to that.
	We can really see the chasm between left and right in America.
	And, you know, Charlie Kirk, God rest his soul, his death has brought to light this incredible divide and also the just total insanity, the animalistic beast nature of what the radical left has become or just mainstream left.
	You know, what the Democrats have become is all, they're all radicalized at this point.
	Now we're seeing that.
	And now we're seeing a lot of talk from, let's say, California Governor Newsom that sounds like pre-Civil War type of talk.
	And also today, you may have heard Jimmy Kimmel.
	His show got canceled by, I think it's Sinclair or ABC that said they're going to pull his show immediately and indefinitely.
	He may never be on the air again.
	Now, Jimmy Kimmel, for the record, Jimmy Kimmel is a, in my opinion, he is a horrible, horrible person.
	He pushed the vaccines.
	He has pushed hatred.
	He has pushed Trump derangement syndrome.
	He's pushed anti-American values.
	Jimmy Kimmel is a demon creature, in my view.
	And he absolutely should be taken off the air.
	And that's not canceled culture.
	I still believe that he has the right to speak on a video platform.
	Hey, he can join Brighteon.
	How about that?
	He can come on Brighteon.
	We won't censor him.
	He can tell his stupid anti-Trump jokes on Brighteon.
	So I don't believe in outlawing his speech, but he's using the airwaves of FCC licensed broadcast networks to spread hatred and indoctrination and brainwashing and to cast spells on the American people with his hatred and his radical leftism.
	He's a radical leftist, even though he may wear a suit jacket from time to time, but he's still a radical leftist.
	So I think all those TV personalities that are pushing this kind of hatred and division and insanity, I think they should all be canceled.
	And again, they can go out.
	They can go on YouTube.
	They can go on Rumble.
	They can go on Brighteon.
	They can join social media.
	They can express their views there.
	They shouldn't be allowed to express their views to a massive nationwide audience using FCC licensed airwaves.
	So Jimmy Kimmel has been, well, pulled off the air.
	And that's a good thing.
	It's a good start.
	And there should be a lot more of that, in my opinion.
	And then on top of that, now we have Donald Trump with a major announcement.
	Major.
	He has declared Antifa to be a terrorist organization.
	And I want to get this.
	I really want to get this right.
	So let me read it for you here.
	Trump said, or he posted on Truth Social, quote, I am pleased to inform our many USA patriots that I am designating Antifa, a sick, dangerous radical left disaster, as a major terrorist organization.
	I guess he could have declared a national disaster.
	Trump, let's see, what else did he say?
	I will also be strongly recommending that those funding Antifa be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices.
	Okay, so this is a game changer.
	And my response is, what took you so long?
	Trump, but better late than never.
	He should have done this in his first term.
	But I don't know, he didn't have the guts or something, or he was surrounded by too many traitors.
	You know, he had Mike Pence as VP, etc.
	That's what a backstabber that guy turned out to be.
	You know, he had Bill Barr as AG or Jeff Sessions initially, you know, just a weak spined soy boy, basically running interference for the deep state.
	I mean, Bill Barr, he is the deep state.
	I mean, he's like the mascot for the deep state.
	So Trump was handicapped, certainly, in his first administration, but he could have done more.
	Nevertheless, he's doing it now.
	Now, again, I've called for this for many, many years because Antifa is clearly a domestic terrorist organization.
	They take funding from dark money sources, and then they use that money to cause chaos, to commit acts of violence, and to try to intimidate people and political candidates across America.
	And clearly they're funded by left-wing NGOs and some globalists who have been involved.
	And with Trump designating Antifa to be a major terrorist organization, what this does is it allows law enforcement now at both the federal and state level to really go after these people and to go after their donors.
	So now we're going to see a very aggressive unraveling of the money laundering networks.
	That's right.
	The money laundering networks that have enabled Antifa to function as terrorists.
	And that's why they always wear masks, by the way, obviously to hide their identities.
	So I want to play this little clip from the, I guess this is from the Charlie Kirk show.
	Even though Charlie's no longer there, obviously has been taken over by mad Zionist Ben Shapiro.
	But even with Ben Shapiro there, they're going after the radical left, that's for sure.
	So this guest, who is named Ryan Mauro, Mauro, sorry, Mauro, he has a video clip here talking about tracing the money from the Open Society Foundation to 54 groups engaged in domestic terrorism on U.S. soil.
	So check out this little clip right here.
	According to George Soros' own files from his Open Society Foundations, so myself, my colleagues at Capital Research Center basically went through as many grants of his, as many funding streams as we could find.
	And here's the smoking guns that we believe that President Trump, if he's informed of it, can use to go after Soros' network of hate in various ways.
	We traced over $80 million going from the Open Society Foundations to at least 54 groups engaged in crime and domestic terrorism on U.S. soil or that are pro-terrorism, endorsing things like the October 7th attacks or are associated with foreign terrorist organizations or explicitly pro-terror groups.
	And this is according to his own files, so it's rock solid.
	And over all of that amount, over 23 million went to at least seven groups that are doing things that meet the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism.
	Can you begin and things like that?
	Can you be specific, more specific than this?
	Absolutely.
	I'm happy to.
	So the Center for Third World Organizing, for example, is an organization that has a hub that fused together several really extreme organizations.
	We found $400,000 going to them, and they openly boast of the fact that they threw down during the uprisings in Minnesota, obviously referring to the rioting and boasting of how many thousands of people they helped train.
	A lot of these groups have created what they'll call like a protest guide or an activism toolkit.
	And it sounds innocuous.
	Then you open it up and you'll see support for Hamas in it.
	But then they'll sometimes slyly say, for more information, go to these hyperlinks.
	And you go to the hyperlinks, and there'll be guides recommending things like property destruction, violence, false IDs, how to obstruct justice, all of these things.
	And they know darn well what they're doing.
	They don't put that there by accident.
	Some of the more careful ones will just direct their readership to anarchist websites with all that material, knowing that they'll see it when it's there.
	And so, yeah, I mean, it's really stunning.
	And some of these groups are coalitions.
	So when I say 54 groups, just one of those might have 300 entities in that one.
	So it's actually the real number is actually much higher.
	All right.
	So there was Ryan.
	And we have to be clear here also, because there are a lot of conservatives who are trying to conflate a peaceful protesting that is anti-Israel protesting or pro-Palestine protesting.
	They're trying to say that is terrorism.
	And as long as it's peaceful, that is not terrorism.
	But where I agree with people like Ryan here and where I agree with conservatives is that Antifa is a terrorist group.
	So was Black Lives Matter.
	BLM, outright terrorism group.
	They would set things on fire.
	They would shine lasers into the eyes of law enforcement.
	They would throw Molotov cocktails.
	They'd set buildings on fire with law enforcement inside the buildings.
	I mean, these are acts of terrorism.
	So we are probably going to see, this is my guess, the escalation of where this is headed is we're going to start seeing bombings all across America.
	Like what was that group called?
	The Weather Underground?
	I think there was a Weather Underground group.
	I think that was back in the, was it like the early 70s?
	I think it was the 70s.
	Anyway, they were, I think, a Marxist or a communist group with some people there with ties linked to Obama, by the way, through, you know, through a couple of steps.
	I'm not saying that Obama himself was part of that group, but some of the people involved in that group were also later involved in influencing Barack Obama and teaching him and giving him his worldview, which is also very much anti-America.
	You know, don't forget that Barack Obama actually helped build left-wing hatred toward America.
	You know, Barack Obama was a civil disruptor.
	He was a chaos agent.
	He was a sleeper cell.
	I think Barack Obama was actually a terrorist against America.
	There's no question in my mind that his actions were designed to destroy America.
	Barack Obama laid the groundwork for the mass invasion of illegals.
	He laid the groundwork for left-wing insanity and all the LGBT lunacy that ended up in child mutilations.
	You know, Barack Obama was the guy who did that.
	He ran false flag gun running operations with Eric Holder.
	That was Operation Fast and Furious, as you may recall.
	Barack Obama was a traitor to America.
	I mean, he still is.
	And he ran Joe Biden to a large extent as well.
	So Barack Obama has had three terms, 12 years of terrorism directed at America.
	Never forget that.
	So a lot of this is Obama's doing.
	And it's going to take some time to dismantle it.
	But Trump seems to be really dedicated on doing that right now.
	And as a result, we are going to see radical left-wing terrorism go ballistic with, like I said, probably bombings.
	So I would not be surprised to see bombing events beginning to take place across America where radical leftists begin bombing.
	It could be churches.
	It could be conservative events.
	There could be more shootings like with Charlie Kirk who they targeted.
	There could be bombings of government buildings.
	There could be bombings of, I mean, you know, take your pick, like, you know, power generation systems or power grid infrastructure or whatever.
	There's nothing the radical left won't do because they are evil.
	They are terrorists.
	They hate this country.
	They want to tear everything down.
	And they think that violence is totally okay in their minds.
	They believe in violence as a means of achieving their goals.
	Clearly.
	I mean, they just murdered Charlie Kirk.
	And they all cheered it.
	So to get back to my original question, now I can see the pathway to how America is fractured and ceases to exist as the country we once knew.
	I can see that happening very quickly.
	It could still happen this year or it could just spill into next year.
	probably the entire Trump administration is going to be well saturated with dealing with this.
	You know, you're probably going to see a radical left-wing uprising that will begin, that will go kinetic.
	You're going to see that.
	And that means that law enforcement is going to be given a lot of funding, a lot of surveillance technology.
	And the excuse is going to be, of course, you know, hey, we got to keep you safe from these radical left-wing terrorists, which could make a lot of sense in the minds of a lot of people because of the bombings that are happening.
	You know, when bombs start going off near your neighborhood, you get pretty freaked out and you want more surveillance.
	You know, that's why some bombings throughout history have been false flags in order to pass this stuff, you know, like 9-11, for example, right?
	But I will remind you, we always have to keep in mind our civil liberties also.
	We have to remember that free speech is a fundamental right of Americans, even leftist Americans.
	Their free speech, I don't want to trample on their free speech.
	I don't want to criminalize them the way that the left criminalized peaceful January 6 protesters who were just there gathering in Washington, D.C. to try to protest the election that really was stolen by the lawless Democrats.
	But the Biden administration went after those peaceful J6 protesters and criminalized them and locked them up for years without trial in many cases and pressured them to sign confessions.
	And by the way, when do all those people get their criminal records wiped clean and restored, you know?
	Because they didn't commit crimes.
	They were not terrorists, but that's what the left labeled them.
	So I don't want to do the same thing to leftists.
	I don't want to say that, you know, Jimmy Kimmel should be arrested and thrown in an isolation cell for four years.
	No, Jimmy Kimmel has the right to speak, just not the right to speak, on the broadcast frequencies.
	And I don't think that any corporation in the broadcast business should platform his voice, but I also think he has the right to speak on YouTube, or like I said, even on Bradyon.
	I would not ban him.
	I would mock him, but I wouldn't ban him.
	So we'll see.
	But be ready for all kinds of an uptick in terrorism and an uptick in violence all across America.
	Oh, also, I forgot to mention that the Sinclair Broadcast Group that does own 24 ABC stations in cities across America, they're going to be airing a tribute to Charlie Kirk in the time slot of Jimmy Kimmel.
	And Jimmy Kimmel is reportedly furious about this.
	He's throwing a bitch fit like Hillary Clinton.
	And also, Sinclair is demanding that Jimmy Kimmel make a, quote, meaningful personal donation to the Kirk family and to Turning Point USA and issue a direct apology to Erica, the spouse, and the kids.
	So this is really interesting because, you know, years ago, it would have been exactly the opposite that anybody who criticized transgenderism would have been ordered to make a donation, you know, to the LGBT groups or make a donation to Black Lives Matter and issue an apology to your neighborhood trans person or whatever.
	Well, that's all been flipped around now.
	The culture war has pivoted 180 degrees.
	And here we are.
	And now the left is being exposed for the insane people that they are.
	And the corporations are realizing that if they don't get along with the Trump administration, they will probably be squeezed out of business one way or another because the FCC said they were taking an interest.
	They're going to launch an investigation.
	Who's it?
	Brandon Carr or Brendan Carr, I think is the FCC guy.
	So Sinclair Broadcast Group got the memo and immediately said, oh, well, we're going to air a tribute to Charlie Kirk.
	Don't come after us.
	That's, you know, it's kind of sad that centralized government is so powerful that it strikes fear into the hearts of corporations.
	But in this case, I agree with Sinclair, of course, canceling the airing of Jimmy Kimmel, who is a horrible person.
	Now, I've recorded a special report I want to play for you here called Hate Speech Laws Are Anti-American.
	Because, of course, Pam Bondi had suggested they're going to go after anybody for hate speech.
	And of course, she got very swiftly educated by a lot of conservatives on why that's exactly the wrong thing to say.
	But let's go to this special report, and then we'll continue on the other side with news about Russia and Ukraine and the EU announcing they're going to steal Russia's assets.
	Yeah.
	Okay, here we go.
	I'm really glad there was tremendous pushback against Pam Bondi recently saying that they're going to target you for hate speech.
	She said, we, the DOJ, we're going to come after you.
	We're going to target you.
	We're going to prosecute you for hate speech.
	Everybody pushed back on that.
	I did not see one positive comment across social media.
	Everybody, conservatives and liberals alike, were pushing back hard against that.
	It's kind of funny to hear liberals pushing back because liberals are the ones who invented the term hate speech and they use it to silence people for years.
	Anybody who was criticizing transgenderism, for example, or criticizing Fauci.
	But the thing is, it's such a dangerous mechanism because whatever regime happens to be in power at the moment can then redefine what they consider to be hate speech.
	And of course, the current Trump administration has, well, it's entirely infiltrated by Israel.
	And they want to criminalize people who criticize Israel.
	So they want to say hate speech is telling the truth about how Netanyahu is a war criminal or how Israel is committing genocide or mass famine and starvation, etc.
	They want to say that's hate speech and we should criminalize that.
	And there are calls for that from the ADL and also from Netanyahu himself, etc.
	So that's why I'm glad there was such pushback because in America, you know, the Supreme Court decisions are very clear.
	The government cannot stifle freedom of speech.
	Nearly all speech is constitutionally protected speech.
	Not 100%.
	You can't make public threats of violence against a person or a group of people or you can't go out and encourage people to commit terrorism or acts of sabotage.
	Obviously, that's not protected speech or snuff films or pornography or stalking videos or whatever.
	That's not protected speech.
	That's speech carried out with the intent to commit a crime.
	But what I'm talking about and what Pam Bondi could be referring to is speech that's just critical of anybody.
	What if I criticize Trump today?
	You know, Trump announces another tariff, let's say, and I'm like, that tariff is stupid.
	Is that hate speech?
	No.
	It's economic criticism.
	Or if I say Netanyahu is a demon, Netanyahu is a war criminal who has his military murder children for sport.
	Is that hate speech?
	No.
	It's my opinion.
	It's my view of a public figure.
	That is constitutionally protected speech.
	And America won't stand for criminalization of protected constitutional speech.
	So Pam Bondi just got her ass handed to her by everybody, and she then walked it back.
	And that's a positive thing.
	I'm glad she realized that, I mean, how can she be so stupid as to say something like that, by the way?
	But finally, she did realize that she's not going to get away with that in America.
	She then clarified it and said, no, I'm talking about hate speech that crosses into the boundaries of violent speech or hate speech that becomes violent speech.
	Okay, well, then why use the term hate speech?
	Why didn't you just say violent speech?
	You know, speech that advocates violence is not constitutionally protected speech.
	So that's already the case.
	That's already clear.
	You don't have to add that to your, you know, your criminal intent or your prosecution intent.
	We already know that.
	And there are other ways to address the dark money networks, the NGOs, and the George Soros type people in the world who are funneling money.
	I'm talking about the NGOs.
	They're funneling money into groups to carry out campaigns of hatred or campaigns of disinformation or to commit acts of terrorism with Antifa type groups or what was Black Lives Matter a few years ago.
	These groups are funded.
	They're funded by dark money networks.
	Well, you could go after the dark money networks.
	They're all engaged in money laundering and fraud.
	So, how many NGOs would apply for grant money for like climate change research or something?
	And they would get a billion dollars from the EPA under the Biden administration or under Obama.
	And then they would turn around and they would distribute that money to a bunch of climate terrorism groups that are involved in, you know, all kinds of public uprisings or terrorism or sabotage campaigns, etc.
	So a lot of that's just money laundering and that's fraud to misrepresent grant applications of how you're going to receive money and how you're going to use the money.
	That's fraud.
	So you can already go after that.
	You don't have to have speech laws if you want to target left-wing hate speech groups.
	You just go after the financial crimes because they're all funded.
	There's very little left-wing so-called hate speech that's organic or grassroots, really.
	Most of it's funded because it's so insane they have to pay people to do these things.
	So you got to go after the dark money networks.
	And if you clean that up, which some of that has happened by shutting down USAID, by the way, and the EPA under Lee Zeldin has pulled back a lot of grant money, like $20 billion in grants or something have been canceled because it was all a fraud to begin with.
	It was all a fraud.
	None of that went to actually doing anything about the climate.
	And the entire climate change narrative is a giant hoax to begin with.
	So there's the biggest part of your answer.
	And yeah, you should go after George Soros using the RICO Act laws, you know, racketeering.
	And what the Democrats do with funneling money and slush funds to NGOs, that's racketeering and fraud.
	So that's how you go after the groups.
	Now, I believe in freedom of speech so strongly that my company has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars suing the government and big tech in order to defend free speech rights for all of us.
	That's the Brighteon versus Google lawsuit.
	I mean, we sued Google, we sued Meta, we sued X, we sued the Department of Defense.
	I think we included the State Department in that.
	That lawsuit's still pending in the federal courts.
	We've spent a small fortune on that lawsuit because we're fighting for your right, not just our rights.
	We're not interested in just a financial settlement that makes it go away.
	We want policy changes.
	We want free speech to be protected and to be respected by the government and the tech platforms alike.
	That's what that lawsuit is all about.
	And thanks to your support, we were able to fund that lawsuit and probably will have to continue funding it.
	So thank you for supporting us.
	And you can do so by shopping at healthrangerstore.com.
	And we recycle whatever profits we generate into projects like our free AI engine, Enoch, at Brighteon.ai or our free tech platform, Brighteon.com, for free speech videos, or Brighteon.social for a free speech social media network.
	So we're constantly fighting for your freedom.
	And we're constantly building and rolling out platforms and tools that you can use to enhance and protect your free speech or to exercise your free speech.
	So thank you for your support.
	Shop with us at healthrangerstore.com.
	Nutrition, superfoods, long-term storable foods, personal care products, all laboratory tested.
	Almost all of it's certified organic, ultra-clean formulations that are amazing.
	No artificial fragrance, no artificial dyes, no junk at all.
	We don't use any junk in our products.
	Just amazing colloidal silver products, including a first aid gel that's made from Texas rainwater.
	That's my formulation with seven essential oils in it.
	It's just amazing.
	Check it out at healthrangerstore.com.
	And thank you for supporting us as we support you and your right to speak freely.
	So God bless America.
	Take care.
	All right, now let's pivot to Russia and Ukraine here.
	And this is highly relevant because my interview today is with Professor Glenn Deason.
	And Professor Glenn Deason is an economics professor in Norway.
	And he's been a very vocal critic of the economic and political policies of NATO and European countries.
	And he and I had a great conversation.
	I'm a big fan of his work, by the way.
	I've followed him for, I guess, a couple of years now.
	And I think he's very bright and he's well educated.
	He gets it.
	So again, you want to stay tuned for that conversation.
	But you may recall that the Western countries seize $300 billion in Russian assets.
	And this happened in 2022 following the special military operation, the attack on Ukraine.
	And of course, Russia was cut off from the SWIFT system.
	But Russia's funds, the 300 billion, which were largely held in banks in the EU, some of it, a few billion, is still being held in, I think, New York, but most of it's held in Europe.
	Well, that was $300 billion that belonged to Russia, but it was held in Western currencies.
	I think it was in, a lot of it was in Euros.
	And I think Euroclear is where these assets are being held or a large part of the assets are being held.
	Yeah, I'm reading 200 billion Euros are currently being held by Euroclear, which sounds like a brand of vodka, by the way, for some reason.
	I don't know.
	Which may be very appropriate, given that half the EU leaders appear to be drunk every time they speak.
	But that's a different topic.
	Anyway, the EU has now announced, coming out of Brussels, they're going to steal $170 billion from Russia.
	They're just going to take it.
	And this is being reported in the Financial Times.
	And they're going to give this money to Ukraine, obviously to fund Ukraine's war effort and, you know, to pay off people and money laundering, etc.
	But the EU says it's for reparation loans.
	No, it's not.
	We know it's not.
	So Moscow responded and said, you know, if you steal our assets, then that is theft.
	That's just straight up theft.
	Which it is, of course.
	You know, if you claim to have the financial infrastructure of the world where you say, oh, well, you know, we have the SWIFT system and your bank can send and receive money and it's just a pipeline.
	It's just infrastructure and everybody can participate.
	And this is how the world trade is going to happen in dollars.
	Everybody's going to use the Western plumbing system for finance.
	But then one day you say, well, we don't like this one country, Russia.
	We're going to steal all the money that they still have in the system.
	Then what you've done is you've shot yourself in the foot, at least, maybe in the face.
	You've shot yourself in the face if you're a Western country leader.
	Because at that point, then who in the world will ever trust the Western financial infrastructure?
	Nobody.
	That's why countries are rapidly moving away from the dollar and embracing bricks.
	It really is that simple.
	Because, I mean, think about it.
	If you deposit money in a bank, okay, and then you got a lot of money in the bank, a few billion dollars, because you're rich.
	And then one day the bank just says to you, hey, we don't like the things that you are doing in your neighborhood.
	We don't like it.
	You're arguing with your neighbors.
	You kicked a dog.
	Yeah, you didn't mow your lawn.
	It's like an HOA, you know.
	And we're just going to take your billions of dollars and keep it.
	And you're like, what?
	No, you're a bank.
	You're supposed to give us our money when we ask for it, right?
	And the bank is like, well, no, we think that you are, we just don't like you.
	So we're just going to take your money.
	And thanks for the money.
	Yeah.
	So wouldn't you go tell all your other neighbors that, hey, don't use that bank.
	That bank just steals your money, for God's sake.
	You know, the neighbors that you haven't fought with anyway.
	And the word would spread.
	Nobody would use the bank.
	It's like, yeah, this is the bank that steals your money.
	Well, that's what the Western financial system is.
	It's the banking system that steals the money of countries they don't like, which happens to be, of course, Russia.
	So von der Leyen has been announcing all this.
	And they've tried to come up with all kinds of sort of legal maneuvers and justifications to steal Russian money.
	And I guess they've talked themselves into something, some kind of a seizure.
	Well, yeah, I mean, they seem to be having seizures.
	But they're going to seize the money and they're going to use it.
	And Euroclear apparently is going to go along with this.
	This is a horrible mistake.
	This is the dumbest thing you can do if you want the dollar or the Euro to ever have value in the long run.
	This is the worst thing that you could possibly do.
	But they're going to do it.
	So 170 billion euros is just being stolen from Russia.
	And I think that's about the size of Russia's entire annual military budget, by the way, or that it may even be more than Russia's military budget.
	That's a big chunk of change, right?
	$170 billion.
	So Moscow warns that this will not go unanswered.
	Okay.
	So this is just straight up piracy, absolute theft by the EU.
	And I think this is the beginning of the end of the Euro and of the EU and of the economies of Western Europe over time.
	And when Russia says this will not go unanswered, we don't know how they will answer this.
	They'll probably seize a bunch of Western assets that are in Russia, perhaps, or they'll find other creative ways to make the West pay, you know.
	Or they have Iskanders.
	They have Oreshnik.
	It's like, yeah, for every billion dollars you stole from us, you get one Oreshnik.
	And since we're making about one a day, we'll just launch them at you for 170 days.
	Yeah, how about that?
	Oreshnik in Brussels, you know, how would that go over?
	It's like, oh, well, guess what?
	You can keep the 170 billion and we'll give you something extra on top.
	It's a cherry on top.
	Yeah, look up and you'll see it.
	It's a bonus gift for the EU.
	Yeah, because you stole our money and now, guess what?
	You're going to need it to rebuild your cities when we're done.
	You know, something like that.
	Actually, technically, Russia doesn't have to do anything to Europe.
	The worst way to punish Western Europe is to just let people like von der Leyen stay in power or Starmer or Macron.
	They are destroying Europe.
	I mean, just stand back and watch, you know, because they're suicide cultists.
	Well, and I talk about that with my guest coming up, Glenn Deason.
	Pretty amazing interview.
	Okay, in other news from Middle East I, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan or Pakistan, excuse me, sign a mutual defense pact.
	That's interesting, right?
	So, see, since the U.S. allowed Israel to bomb Qatar, then the Saudis have realized, hey, we're not safe either.
	The U.S. isn't going to protect us.
	So they've signed a defense pact with Pakistan.
	This has everything to do with Israel because Israel is out of control.
	Israel's a rogue terrorist state bombing everybody, assassinating everybody, bombing.
	I mean, they blew up half the cabinet of Yemen a few weeks back.
	And when they bombed Qatar, even the Saudis realized, we're not safe.
	So not safe from Israel.
	And the U.S. isn't going to keep their end of the bargain to try to control or protect our airspace against incursions.
	You know, the U.S. is wholly owned by Israel at this point.
	So Pakistan said in a statement that this agreement reflects the shared commitment of both nations to enhance their security and to achieve security and peace in the region, saying that the agreement states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.
	So this is basically like an Article 5 type of arrangement for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
	Now, you may recall that Pakistan was in a recent kerfuffle with India.
	Kerfuffle means, for those of you who are international listeners who may not be familiar with that term, kerfuffle means a little conflict, a little fight.
	That was in Pakistan a couple months ago.
	So now if India starts bombing Pakistan with fighter jets or whatever, or artillery, then I guess the Saudis are going to get involved.
	Although I don't know what the Saudis have in terms of missiles and weapons systems, but I'm sure they've got something.
	I'm just not familiar with their inventory.
	So remember that Qatar and Saudi Arabia and the UAE, they're all partners with the U.S. and they really have trusted the U.S. to defend them against attacks.
	And the fact that the U.S. allowed Israel to bomb Qatar, that's changed everything.
	It's kind of like the U.S. allowing the EU to steal $300 billion from Russia.
	All of a sudden, the world loses faith in the SWIFT system.
	Just like right now, the Gulf states are losing faith in the U.S. military, which is going to create some very odd situations because there are military bases all over those countries, even in Saudi Arabia, of course.
	So I'm wondering if Qatar is going to disinvite the USA from even having a military base there.
	But it looks like U.S. power in the region is most definitely waning or being challenged or the credibility of U.S. power, I should say, is being challenged.
	And who's been destroying U.S. credibility?
	Well, of course, Israel.
	You know, Israel is like the bad friend that you had in high school who always got you into trouble by starting fights with everybody.
	That's Israel.
	And now this story, also out of Middle East, I, Smotrich, who's the finance minister, said that the Gaza Strip is a, quote, real estate bonanza and that they're going to be working with Trump to develop real estate, you know, luxury condos on the beach.
	But first they have to bulldoze all the dead bodies out of the way that they slaughtered through genocide, of course.
	So this is, he was speaking at a real estate conference because, of course, this is all about money for the Israelis and for some of Trump's people as well, that they have carried out the, quote, first phase of urban renewal by bombing Gaza into rubble.
	Now, what a heartless statement to make.
	Heartless.
	I mean, there were millions of people living there, families, children, women, you know, doctors, artists, priests, churchgoers, you name it.
	And they are saying that the first phase of urban renewal is to bomb every building into rubble and then bring in the bulldozers and clear it out.
	And they're like, yeah, now we're going to make a fortune on the real estate deals.
	See, this is where Trump shows his shocking lack of morality.
	And where, of course, Israel shows that it's a terror nation run by demonic entities.
	I mean, this guy, Smotrich, just one of the most evil characters in history.
	He said, quote, we've poured a lot of money into this war.
	We have to see how we are dividing up the land in percentages, he says.
	Man, that is such a shy thing to say right there.
	It's like, well, we spent a lot of money bombing these people, and now we better get the right percentage out of this, you know, because for them, it's all about the money.
	They don't care about lives.
	They have zero compassion for fellow human beings.
	I mean, that actually seems to be the defining trait of Israelis or Zionists is that they lack that part of the human brain that other people have that has empathy.
	You know, it's the empathy circuit or the compassion circuit.
	They don't have it.
	They don't think anything of anybody else.
	Just like we're witnessing here, they can bomb an entire region into rubble, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and they can brag about we're going to get percentages of the luxury real estate.
	You know, it's a good thing.
	This is urban renewal.
	I mean, I'm quoting him.
	He says this.
	And Donald Trump had announced in February that the U.S. is going to take over the Gaza Strip and is going to redevelop it into the Riviera of the Middle East.
	That's what Donald Trump said.
	I mean, are these some heartless creeps or what?
	I mean, what kind of a person thinks that way?
	Well, a person who has no empathy whatsoever for other human beings.
	That's who.
	Just shocking.
	But there's more.
	There's more.
	So now there's a new assault being launched on Gaza that was just initiated.
	And apparently they've got more airstrikes and more drones and quadcopter strikes.
	But on top of that, they now have these, it's being reported they have these like ground drones or robotic vehicles that are heavily loaded up with explosives.
	And then they drive these vehicles remotely into areas where there are people and then they detonate them on the ground.
	So they're turning Gaza into a kill zone, a Terminator vehicle robot Mad Max kill zone.
	I mean, it's really unbelievable.
	Even the UN Secretary General Guterres, who I don't agree with on a lot of things, he said that what happened in Gaza today is horrendous.
	We're seeing massive destruction of neighborhoods.
	Now the systematic destruction of Gaza city.
	We are seeing massive killing of civilians in a way that I do not remember in any conflict since I am Secretary General.
	And But again, the Israelis and Trump, they think it's great.
	All in.
	No problem.
	Which really tells you something, doesn't it?
	If your government has no morality, then we're all in danger sooner or later.
	Because they don't have morals.
	They don't have humanity.
	They're just interested in the money and the real estate, even if it means killing a bunch of people to get them out of the way.
	I mean, they openly admit that.
	They brag about it.
	They actually have real estate investment seminars to get people to put money up for this.
	I mean, they're marketing this.
	This is their business plan.
	I mean, if you have a business plan that requires first committing genocide, then I would say you're in the wrong business.
	But for Trump, that's okay.
	Just another business.
	You know, got some casinos over here, got some golf courses over here.
	And then, oh, yeah, we got some genocide going over over there in Gaza to make way for the luxury condos.
	Yeah, maybe we'll have a golf course to cover up the rubble.
	You know, well, bull does it.
	We'll remove the remains of the people that we slaughtered, and then we'll have a really beautiful golf course.
	It's going to be the big, beautiful golf course.
	You can just hear him saying that.
	I mean, this is a failing of morality at a level that's almost unimaginable.
	And yet, it characterizes both the United States Congress and most of the Trump administration, or all of it, really.
	Because anybody who opposed Israel didn't get confirmed, you know, like Matt Gates, for example, there's a reason why he's not AG, because he wouldn't take the money, just like Charlie Kirk wouldn't take the money.
	And, you know, Thomas Massey wouldn't take the money.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene will not take the money.
	Brian Mass will take the money and he'll keep calling for mass death and killing people because he's getting paid.
	These people are sick, huh?
	Nevertheless, Israel is losing the information war in a huge way.
	So I've got a special report on that to play next.
	Israel has lost the information war.
	Let's go to that and then we'll come back and talk about robots and stuff.
	Oh boy.
	Okay, here we go.
	Well, Israel has lost the information war.
	They're fighting like crazy to try to win, but they keep losing ground every single day.
	You know, Israel runs bot farms so that if you post anything critical of Israel online, immediately you'll be swarmed by all kinds of bots, which are just these anonymous accounts run by automated scripts to post pro-Israel content or tell you you're an idiot or whatever.
	And of course, the label of anti-Semitism is thrown around at everybody who dares to criticize Israel's ongoing crimes against humanity, genocide, Israel's bombings of not just women and children, but also of hospitals, doctors, and heads of state bombing other countries like Yemen or assassinating people in Iran or in Lebanon.
	And, you know, Israel is unable to control this.
	That's why I say they're losing the information war.
	Now, every major attack platform is controlled by Israel at this point, including TikTok.
	The new owners are all Zionists.
	And they are desperately trying to take down every kind of comment that is critical of Israel in any way whatsoever or critical of Netanyahu, etc.
	And the tech platforms are letting them do that.
	And this reminds me a lot of the COVID years.
	During the COVID years, you could not say anything critical of vaccines or critical of Fauci.
	So that was the protected person or the protected topic in 2020 and 2021, etc.
	Today, the protected topic is Israel.
	But just like with vaccines, which were killing people, Israel is killing people.
	So the truth will always come out.
	The truth will come out no matter how hard they try to cover it up.
	Information is too decentralized today for Israel to have a monopoly on what is censored.
	They can achieve some success on major platforms, but a lot of people are using alternative platforms or decentralized platforms.
	And the truth is that it's Israel's own actions and behavior that condemn it.
	The people are just commenting on what they see Israel doing.
	It's like, oh, You're murdering children that are trying to get food.
	And Israel's like, yeah, sure we are.
	That's what we do.
	How else are we going to have greater Israel?
	You know, they're not even hiding it.
	And that's what people are reacting to.
	It's Israel's own behavior.
	And the thing is that the high-level government Israelis, they live in such a bubble that they don't see anything wrong with just openly admitting that, yeah, we kill people.
	Yeah, we kill babies.
	Yeah, we just bomb residential buildings.
	We bomb hospitals.
	Yeah, there might have been tunnels under those hospitals.
	Who knows?
	They don't think there's anything wrong with that.
	That's the thing.
	The world is not just witnessing the complete lack of morality by Israel and the violent acts.
	The world is witnessing the fact that the Israeli leaders are so evil that they don't even see anything wrong with their genocide.
	That's what's shocking to the world.
	That here is an entire group of people that have absolutely no empathy for fellow human beings.
	They have zero compassion.
	They have no recognition of the dignity of other human beings.
	So they don't honor, you know, anybody being a child of God, let's say.
	And that behavior is truly demonic.
	To think that, oh, you have to kill this entire group of people in order for your own people to have more land or for your own people to build a luxury beachside resort.
	But first, you got to kill all these other people, hundreds of thousands or even millions.
	You got to kill them or displace them.
	That's what Israeli leadership believes and promotes and doesn't see anything wrong with.
	And the whole world is rejecting that.
	The entire world.
	And that's why they have such a crackdown on speech on the tech platforms.
	Because this is their last desperate ploy.
	They have to just try to stop people from talking about how evil they are.
	And of course, they're trying to label everybody as being anti-Semitic.
	But everybody can see the truth.
	Everybody can see that these so-called Christian pastors who are defending Israel are themselves raging lunatics.
	Everybody can see that.
	Or the ones that present in a more calm manner still have no morals and no ethics and effectively are anti-Christ people.
	They don't even believe what Jesus taught, which is clear in their own actions, right?
	So all the lies shall be revealed.
	And we are seeing these people expose themselves for the evil demons they truly are.
	The unbridled Satanism, the ritualistic child sacrifice, which is another satanic practice that you can read about in the Old Testament as well.
	This is what's being carried out today right in front of us.
	And what you see is what's happening.
	This is not complicated.
	You don't have to have anyone try to explain it to you.
	It's like they bombed this entire region into rubble.
	They bombed all the apartment buildings, the residential buildings, the churches, the mosques, even Christian churches.
	They bombed the hospitals.
	They bombed the universities.
	They bombed it all.
	That is not okay.
	That is not what good people do.
	That is what evil people do.
	And the Israelis, at least the leadership, they are purely evil people.
	They are satanic.
	And God will not save them.
	Christ will not return to save those who are advocates for Israeli genocide and ritualistic child murder.
	And the Christians who think that Christ is going to come back and fly out of the sky on a white horse, you know, Revelation 19, they think that this is good stuff, you know, to murder Palestinians.
	They think that Christ is going to say, yes, that's awesome.
	That's what we want.
	Do more.
	And they're delusional.
	Christ rejects that.
	There's no question about this.
	And again, every pastor who tells you otherwise, every pastor who is defending Israel is a satanic demon in human form, a deceiver deceiving his flock.
	And there are quite a few of them.
	And it's very clear.
	So you know that when they resort to mass censorship of criticism, you know that they've reached the point of desperation.
	They can't control the commentary.
	They can't control the dialogue.
	All they can do now is just censor everybody.
	Or like, you know, like Charlie Kirk was taken out.
	That's the ultimate form of censorship to silence people who begin to ask questions.
	And that's what they do.
	I mean, that's what they're doing on all the tech platforms right now, silencing people who dare to ask questions.
	So the answer to this is decentralize yourself off of those mainstream tech platforms.
	Instead, use the independent platforms like ours, Brighteon.social or Brighteon.io, or post your videos at Brighteon.com.
	Now, of course, we are censored by X and we're censored by Google, etc.
	But you got to get past that.
	You got to just realize that in order to have free speech, you're going to have to use platforms like Gab or Rumble or Brighteon that are going to be censored by the other platforms.
	But that's okay.
	Don't use Google as your search engine.
	Use Brave Search.
	Don't use YouTube as your main video platform.
	Use Brighteon.com or Rumble, or BitChute.
	I mean, pick the alternative platforms, and that's how you will protect your freedom to speak.
	And we all have the right and the freedom to criticize genocide.
	It's not just the right thing to do.
	We have an obligation to do that.
	We have an obligation to call out demons that are murdering children systematically.
	And so obviously, we're going to continue to do that because it's the right thing to do.
	It's the Christ-like thing to do.
	Murdering children is wrong.
	Starving children is wrong.
	And yes, Israel is engaged in engineered famine.
	They do it on purpose.
	Of course they do.
	That's who they are.
	They are demons.
	And they will find another 100 ways to murder women and children and doctors, whatever it takes, because they are murderers.
	They are demons.
	Understand?
	So that's where we are in the world right now.
	Stay tuned.
	I'm Mike Adams, the health ranger, Brighteon.com.
	And also, you can find my articles at naturalnews.com.
	Take care.
	All right, welcome back.
	We're going to shift our focus here to robots and industry also.
	And this is really a great topic because of my interview coming up with Glenn Deason, where we talk about industry and energy and the geopolitics of, well, the economic influences that are taking place with war and pipelines and energy and all of that.
	And I've got a special report, one more to play for you here today that's called the USA Lags Years Behind China on Robotics.
	But a little discussion before we go to that.
	Now, I'm looking forward to certain types of robots that can help me live a more decentralized life.
	You know, robots will be able to help us around the house.
	They'll be able to help us on the farm, on the ranch.
	They'll help us grow food and things like that.
	I'm very much looking forward to that.
	On the downside, robots are going to replace the jobs of a great many human beings.
	Although this will take many years, many years.
	It's not going to happen overnight.
	I hear people think, oh, in two years, we're all obsolete.
	Not plumbers.
	I mean, coders are already becoming obsolete, but that's software-based AI.
	The physical world AI is going to take a whole lot longer, many years longer, in order for the rollout to, you know, actually achieve some traction.
	And even then, there will be some things that robots are not very good at doing that humans do a lot better, like plumbing or HVAC repair or certain other types of things, like, I don't know, repairing shoes.
	Who knows?
	Things like that.
	Or fixing a tractor, perhaps, you know, that might be difficult for a robot.
	You know, being a car mechanic, robots are going to have a hard time fitting their fingers into all the little nooks and crannies under the hood of a vehicle, frankly.
	It helps to have like squishy human hands to get that done.
	So there are going to be a lot of things that humans will do better for many years to come.
	But for the algorithmic types of things, the repetitive, monotonous tasks like fulfillment center or flipping burgers at a restaurant or even waiting tables, that's very algorithmic.
	Those jobs will be largely replaced by robots in the years ahead.
	So the downside of the robot rollout is it's going to push a lot of people into poverty a lot.
	We're going to see basically an elimination of the middle class and we're going to see a divide where people who can afford robots will be considered wealthy because those robots will help you do stuff and actually help you stay wealthy, you know?
	And those who can't afford robots will be increasingly impoverished and they won't have help.
	Nobody to fix their meals, nobody to grow their food, nobody to fold their laundry.
	So the key deciding factor in this is going to be, can you afford robots or a robot?
	Just one robot could be extremely helpful around the house.
	And a robot that can do a lot of things could easily cost $100,000.
	Of course, they'll put it on a payment plan, just like owning a vehicle.
	And there are a lot of trucks today that cost $100,000.
	So it's not going to be unusual for people to buy a $100,000 robot and make a monthly payment on it, you know, $1,000 a month or whatever.
	There's going to be financing.
	But then again, a lot of Americans are too broke to afford another $1,000 a month because of the cost of health insurance and home insurance and the cost of food.
	And with the Federal Reserve now lowering its interbank lending rate by 25 basis points, which is a quarter of a point percentage-wise, that's going to lead to more inflation.
	There's just no question about it.
	Trump's pressure on the Fed is going to increasingly destroy the middle class.
	That's a certainty.
	It's just economics 101.
	So this is why it's critical to have gold and silver, in my view, because that's what's going to survive the currency debasement that is taking place.
	You know how the joke goes, right?
	Where does the Fed hold its secret meetings to destroy the currency?
	Answer, in debasement.
	But if you're just holding dollars and treasuries, the debasement is going to get you.
	Whereas if you're holding gold and silver, you're going to hold the value of your assets.
	I mean, look at gold now.
	It's practically $3,700 an ounce.
	Silver is like 42 something an ounce.
	You know, they are skyrocketing because the dollar is collapsing.
	That's why.
	And if you want to have any assets left at the end of all this, if you want to be able to afford a robot, you're probably going to need to have some substantial amount of assets outside the banking system, you know, where they can't get it with a bail-in or outside the currency where they can't get it with money printing.
	You're going to need some gold and silver that holds value, in my view.
	I mean, think about it.
	If gold is $5,000 an ounce, then you can buy a robot, a high-end robot, with 20 ounces of gold, 20 pieces.
	Here, that's just one tube of gold coins.
	Here you go.
	Give me a robot.
	A good one.
	A robot that can cook for you and fold laundry and walk the dog and whatever.
	Pick up the eggs from the chicken house.
	That's what I want.
	I want like a farm robot.
	I'll put a cowboy hat on it and some cowboy blue jeans or something.
	I'll have it doing ranch tasks, you know.
	But 20 gold pieces is all it's going to take to buy a robot.
	And probably is my guess.
	And also 20 gold pieces would buy you a really nice vehicle.
	And then let's say you want to buy like a $2 million home, a pretty high-end luxury mansion.
	It's 200 gold pieces, you know, boom, it's yours.
	So gold is going to be the currency of the wealthy, I believe, because gold will hold value and everybody will eventually accept gold because the dollar continues to collapse.
	So of course, if you want to get some gold, then be sure to check out our sponsor.
	It's the Battalion Metals Company at metalswithmike.com.
	Highly trusted, great pricing.
	You can see their pricing in real time.
	That's who I use.
	That's who I recommend to everybody.
	Anybody that wants to buy gold, whether it's a family member or a business partner or somebody I've interviewed, say, you know, where should I get gold?
	I send them right to Battalion Metals, and they're always happy about that because they get a great value and they know that it's trustworthy.
	Because, you know, you're wiring money from your bank to the gold company.
	It better be somebody you trust, you know, because you can't get the wire back.
	It's a one-way deal.
	It's like, you know, this is why banks always harass you when you're trying to wire a bunch of money.
	Have you ever done that?
	You're wired like $50,000 to buy metals or something and the bank harasses you like, what's it for?
	You know, and if you make the mistake of telling them, oh, I'm buying gold.
	Oh, you're buying gold.
	Oh, my God.
	It's a scam.
	Gold's a scam.
	Gold is horrible, they say, because they're bankers, you know.
	You should put it in a CD here in the bank, you know, where we can steal it from you in a crisis.
	Like, no, thanks.
	No, I don't, I don't go for your bail-in.
	I want physical gold in my hand.
	They're like, gold, gold, it's a scam.
	It says, it's a scam.
	Like, your whole bank is a scam.
	All your deposits are imaginary.
	The currency you claim to have isn't even backed by anything.
	I mean, if I could say this to a typical banker, like, your entire career is based on managing scams.
	I mean, everything you represent here is fake.
	Everything, especially the money.
	Gold is real money.
	So what I'm doing is I am swapping out your fake money for real money by wiring money out of this bank over to Battalion Metals or whoever you're getting it from to get real money.
	And if you'd like to know what real money looks like, I'll be happy to swing back by and show you a gold coin or a silver coin in case you've never actually seen real money, bank manager, because a lot of bank managers don't know what money is.
	They think dollars are money, and it's not.
	Currency is not money by definition because it doesn't hold value.
	Oh, that's a favorite pastime, educating bank managers on the definition of money.
	Indeed.
	I guess I won't have to do that anymore when the robots wipe out everybody.
	But you see, I know how to talk to robots, so I think I can negotiate my way out of it.
	That's my secret plan.
	I'm going to talk my way out of Skynet extermination.
	I will override the user prompt with a system prompt, you know, reprogram the robot.
	Okay.
	So let's go to the special report.
	The U.S. lags years behind China on robotics.
	And then when we finish that special report, I've got the interview with Glenn Deeson.
	And I think you'll really appreciate this.
	Again, Glenn Deeson is an economics professor from Norway, high IQ individual.
	We have a lot to talk about.
	You're going to learn a ton.
	So here we go.
	Enjoy.
	So the country that's going to benefit first from robotic automation and taking over a lot of the labor jobs or augmenting them is going to be China.
	Why?
	Because China can make the robots.
	Not only is China the leader in robotics with companies like Unitree that are just blowing away everything from the West, but China has a rare earth minerals like neodymium that are necessary to make the actuators, which are the joint motors that go into the robots.
	And if you don't have neodymium, then you don't make robots, period.
	So you got to have neodymium.
	You need to have an industrial factory ecosystem, which China has in spades.
	You need to have a lot of affordable energy, which China has.
	And there's a new pipeline from Russia that will provide 50 million cubic meters of gas every year just to northern China.
	That's energy that used to go to Europe.
	But of course, we know what happened there.
	So Russia is selling it to China now.
	China will have cheap energy, affordable data centers, affordable manufacturing.
	And China has the advantage in robotics and other areas.
	China will mass produce the robots for itself first.
	So that means that the cost of.
	manufacturing goods in china is about to plummet and i hear people who make precisely the opposite argument and they're wrong they say that china's labor cost advantage will vanish As robotic labor takes over the whole world, they're thinking that, oh, when robots come into America, then America's factories can churn out products as cheaply as China's factories.
	That is not true.
	That's wrong.
	I mean, that's an incorrect conclusion.
	The correct conclusion is that China will automate first.
	China will have lower labor costs first by far.
	And the United States will find itself many, many years behind China.
	And by that time, it will be too late because China will have established its manufacturing and market dominance in the areas that are ripe for automation, such as manufacturing solar panels, for example, or manufacturing robots for that matter, or manufacturing EVs, or manufacturing battery systems, telecom systems, even microchips for training AI.
	China's got its own microchip technology too.
	It doesn't need to be NVIDIA for everything.
	China's developing its own microchips and it's going to manufacture its own mobile phones and its own communications chips, everything.
	So China is going to be years ahead of everybody else in the world when it comes to robotic automation.
	China's robots will be more capable and they'll be lower cost and they'll be churned out in much larger numbers.
	So that's going to cause even more of a trade imbalance between the United States and China.
	Because as inflation really kicks in in the United States, you're going to see a lot of people choosing the cheaper Chinese goods, which are lower in cost, but the quality of Chinese-made goods is increasing rapidly.
	You know, China used to be known for just crappy quality.
	And even I've said that in years past, but that's changing rapidly.
	China is making very high-quality goods now, durable goods, consumer goods and technology goods, et cetera, even vehicles.
	So China's manufacturing capabilities are rising.
	And China is going to be able to do this at a cost that is unachievable in the West.
	Absolutely unachievable.
	Especially when electricity costs in America are edging upwards toward 50 cents a kilowatt hour.
	They're not there yet, but they will be soon.
	And in Europe, electricity costs are in many places already higher than 50 cents a kilowatt hour.
	In China, because of the energy coming from Russian gas and the hydropower projects that China is pursuing, they'll have electricity for 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour.
	So they'll have a fraction of the cost for power compared to America.
	They'll have the rare earth minerals.
	They have the industrial base and they'll have the cheap labor that's augmented by robotics.
	So nobody's going to be able to compete with China in terms of low-cost manufacturing, not for many, many years, if ever.
	Now, in America, you've got companies like Tesla that have their own robots.
	Now, I forgot the name of the robot, but whatever.
	It's going to be like an $80,000 robot that's mostly designed to work around the home.
	I mean, yeah, there will be some factory deployment, but these robots are going to be way too expensive to be replicated in large numbers in warehouses and factories.
	These are going to be more social robots or medical assistants or a home companion or a home chef or, you know, a robot that can fold laundry or that can, you know, watch grandma or whatever.
	This is how the robots are going to be used in the West.
	And they'll be a lot more expensive and they will be less reliable.
	And there's going to be shortages of these robots.
	They're just going to be really hard to get because of the, of course, the fact that manufacturing these requires a scaling up of robot infrastructure that just doesn't exist in the West.
	It does not exist.
	So the robot you want, yeah, it may be you can find it on the Tesla webpage, but oh, it's available in 2028 or something, you know?
	And even then, it's 100 grand by that time or more and it breaks a lot or it's, you know, not durable.
	Oh, it fell down the stairs.
	Now it's broken.
	Whereas the Chinese robots are going to be, let's say, $10,000 to $20,000, and you'll be able to plug them right into a warehouse, like start moving boxes, you know, start sweeping floors, start restocking shelves, or, you know, pick up trash along the highway or whatever they do, you know, even outdoor jobs, agriculture, labor jobs.
	They're going to be cheap.
	They're going to be reliable.
	They're going to be easily replaceable.
	There's going to be a supply chain where you could get parts, you can get batteries.
	You know, China's going to dominate.
	So, oh, and they're going to be mostly shorter robots.
	So, they're going to be robots that are like five foot four or something, which is fine for most tasks.
	And that greatly reduces the overall chassis weight of the robot.
	It requires a lot less energy for that robot to be mobile.
	And most of the tasks that you're dealing with every day, they don't require a giant hulking terminator robot, just requires hand dexterity, which can definitely be achieved with smaller framed robots.
	So out of China, you're going to get a large number of small robots that are very reliable, very economical, self-charging.
	You know, some of them will swap their own batteries out, whatever.
	And they're going to be able to do a tremendous number of tasks in the years ahead.
	Now, here's the question.
	Will China ban its robot exports to the United States because of the trade wars with America?
	You see, you know, the U.S. is punishing China and saying, well, you can't import these microchips or the microchip lithography technology.
	We don't want you to have chips.
	So that's a sanction against China as a nation.
	Well, what if China says, well, we're going to reciprocate that and say you can't have robots.
	And then they just focus all their robots domestically to automate domestically as rapidly as possible.
	You fast forward a couple of years.
	America is still living in the past with human labor at grocery stores and Amazon fulfillment centers while China has fully automated everything and their costs are plummeting and their productivity is exploding and their GDP is exploding.
	But America has been left behind because of the trade war.
	That's a very real possibility.
	China could say that, well, robots that can work in factories, this is actually a national security issue.
	And we need to ban exports of these robots to countries that are military competitors with China or enemies with China, let's say.
	So they could easily ban robots to the United States.
	And then in the U.S., we'll be stuck with the U.S.-made robots that will be, again, too expensive, unreliable, complicated, you know, large, heavy, difficult to transport, you know, long charging times.
	They'll use more electricity, etc.
	So that's the difference.
	That's where this is all going.
	Now, I've said before, I want a weed-pulling robot.
	That's my number one request for a robot.
	I want a weed-pulling robot because I want to grow more food.
	Actually, I want a robot that grows food, technically.
	I want a robot that harvests food, that plants food.
	I want a robot that can pick up a shovel or a rake and can work the dirt.
	I want a dirt-moving robot, you know.
	But if we get an all-purpose, generic humanoid robot, even five-foot-four model, it's going to be able to do all those things.
	Plus, it can pull weeds.
	And I also want it to collect my chicken eggs.
	And there's a few other things I wanted to do as well.
	On top of that, tasks like picking up trash or whatever.
	And it'll be able to do all those things because it's going to be a generic, all-purpose, you know, humanoid robot chassis.
	I want it to do perimeter security.
	I want it to walk around and, you know, keep an eye out for intruders or whatever.
	Or, I don't know, spot interesting wildlife and take pictures of any animals that it spots.
	You know, I want to see, hey, how many falcons did we see today?
	How many raccoons are near the chicken house?
	Things like that.
	I mean, that's agricultural perimeter security.
	And those are legit tasks.
	So those are the things that I want, and that's coming soon.
	So you're going to have robot augmentation of country living.
	You're going to have robot augmentation of factory work and a lot of other areas as well.
	So get ready.
	The future is arriving very, very quickly.
	And you need to keep an eye on things.
	Otherwise, it'll pass you up quickly.
	I will keep you posted, of course, about both agentic AI, which is software AI, as well as robots.
	And my emphasis is on human freedom and decentralization, helping you live out in the country, helping you have access to knowledge, helping you live more off-grid so that you don't have to go buy food at a grocery store as much as you used to.
	If you could grow some of your own food, that would be great.
	If you could grow some of your own medicine, if your robot could grow oregano and then make oregano oil out of it or make like grow time and make a time tincture, it could do that.
	That's all doable.
	Wouldn't it be great to have a robot that just makes your own home medicine?
	Well, that's doable, or it's going to be shortly.
	And when it can do that, a robot that costs $20,000 is very affordable if it can do all these different tasks, you know, 12 hours a day or whatever it can do before it needs charging again.
	Or you can swap the battery and send it back out.
	Hey, get back to work.
	No break for you.
	No downtime for the robot.
	It's working 24-7.
	It can be pulling weeds at night, you know, whatever.
	All right.
	Thanks for listening.
	Check out our AI engine.
	It's called Enoch and it's free to use at brighteon.ai.
	And you can check out my articles at naturalnews.com or my other interviews and podcasts at brighteon.com.
	Follow me on X at HealthRanger.
	And follow me at Brighteon.social, also HealthRanger, or Brighteon.io, which is our blockchain-driven platform for social media.
	Check it all out there.
	Thank you for listening.
	God bless you all.
	Take care.
	Again, I warned all the way, Russia has an immense military power.
	They would likely win such a war because they have the benefit of the proximity.
	The idea that they could isolate Russia in the world, this was also a fantasy.
	It's easy to be tough on Russia when we're using Ukrainians and throwing them into the grave.
	If you want to compete in this high-tech era, you need access to cheap energy, as you did in all industrial revolutions.
	Recognize reality and see the opportunities instead of trying to fight it.
	And if we had had free speech in Europe still, we had the ability to dissent and talk, but I don't think we do.
	Welcome to today's interview here on Brighteon.com.
	I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighteon.
	And today we have a very special guest.
	It's the first time that he's joined us on this show, but I have to confess I've been a fan of his work for several years now, frankly, since 2022 with the start of the conflict in Ukraine.
	His name is Glenn Deason, and he's a professor of political economics.
	He joins us today to discuss the political economic situation, which is very complex in Europe and much more.
	So welcome, Professor Deason.
	It's an honor to have you on today, sir.
	Well, no, it's my pleasure.
	Thank you so much for inviting me on.
	Well, thank you for joining us.
	I think that many of our audience members may already be familiar with you and your work.
	But for those who are not, can you give us a brief background of who you are and what you like to focus on?
	Well, as I said, I'm a professor of political economy.
	My main interest initially was on the construction of a new Europe after the Cold War.
	So the competing conceptions, what kind of Europe the Western Europeans wanted versus Russia.
	And when all of this broke apart, that is the European security architecture fell apart in 2014 with the toppling of the government in Ukraine to bring it into the NATO orbit, I started shifting focus more towards what Russia would do economically.
	So I wrote a book therefore in 2015 on the topic.
	The book was called Russia's Geoeconomic Strategy for Greater Eurasia.
	So the argument it would diversify all its economic connectivity from the West towards the East.
	So primarily China, looking then at the technologies, industries, transportation corridors, banks, payment systems, currencies, and everything in this regard.
	And this happened around the same time as the Chinese were also seeking to develop a more alternative economic architecture.
	So this couldn't happen at a worse time for the European studies.
	And no, this was my focus.
	And again, I warned all the way, not just from 2014, but since 2004, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, that efforts to split, to cause divisions between Ukraine and Russia by pulling Ukraine into the Western orbit would likely result in war.
	I warned against this all the way to 2014.
	After 2014, I kept arguing that we need a political settlement.
	Otherwise, there will be war and Ukraine will be destroyed.
	And yeah, so which took us up to 2022.
	And I then wrote a book on the war, why it has happened and also how it will likely play out.
	And it has played out as I suggested.
	And This is why it's quite depressing to see what's happening now, which is the complete destruction of Ukraine.
	The Russians aren't getting their offer of restoring Ukraine's neutrality, so they're instead stripping Ukraine of the regions which were historically Russian and making a basket case out of the rest.
	So, yes, I don't like to be correct, but on this I was...
	You saw this coming, and it looks like your academic focus and your authorship research actually positioned you perfectly to understand what's happening today.
	And I want to give out your X account and your YouTube channel also.
	So on X, your handle here is Glenn with two N's, underscore Deeson, D-I-E-S-E-N.
	For the Americans, it's spelled like diesel, but with an N instead of an L, in case you're wondering.
	So Glenn Deason.
	And then you also have a YouTube channel, and that's easy to find just by searching for Glenn Deason.
	And I'm a fan of your work on YouTube.
	I really appreciate your channel and the guests that you have on.
	Now, despite the fact that you saw this coming and you warned about it, as you just described, are you shocked by how severely the West miscalculated in its ability to attempt to cripple Russia's economy when, in fact, the opposite has occurred.
	The economies of Western European nations have been crippled and Russia's economy appears to be stronger than ever before.
	And the U.S. itself is in a lot of economic trouble and resorting to tariffs, punitive tariffs on allies in order to try to address trade imbalances through strangulation, I suppose.
	But are you surprised at the miscalculation of the West?
	Well, not really.
	Well, the miscalculations were quite profound.
	Again, back in 2022, when the Russians went in, the argument was that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield if we just supplied the weapons.
	Economically, we put the sanction.
	We thought that Russia would collapse by the end of the weekend.
	And of course, we're going to isolate Russia in the international system.
	Now, well, for many reasons, I think this was a lot of wishful thinking.
	And we've kind of been talking about Russia as if it's this tiny economy smaller than Spain.
	We've been saying there's a gas station masquerading as a country, as John McCain labeled it.
	So we kind of bought in, I think, to our own propaganda.
	But in reality, Russia has an immense military power.
	It's the largest nuclear power in the world.
	They have an immense industrial capability to build up a war machine.
	They always had, as Obama won back in 2016, they would likely win such a war because they have the benefit of the proximity.
	That is, they have the logistics in place.
	And very importantly, they want this more as well, because for them, this is an existential threat.
	So they will go all the way and have the capabilities to go all the way.
	And economically, again, this is what I was working on.
	I even worked as a professor in Moscow looking at this economic shift from the West to the East, that they wanted to decouple to be less dependent on Western technologies and industries and the maritime corridors and the Swiss payment system and the dollar and the Euro and the banks.
	So they've been working on this for quite some time to make their economy bulletproof or sanction proof.
	And lastly, the idea that they could isolate Russia in the world, this was also a fantasy, in my opinion, because the rest of the world isn't like NATO.
	85% of the world's population live in countries which hasn't put sanctions on Russia.
	And even countries who oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they don't want to see Russia defeated because that would mean an effort by the West to revert to the unipolar moment.
	And they want to live in a multipolar world.
	So it's very difficult outside of NATO to get any countries to join on to this proxy war against the Russians.
	So again, I tried to warn about this, but we haven't had much acceptance towards dissent here.
	When I warned that Russia would win the war, the argument I heard back was I was trying to undermine the war effort.
	When I warned from day one that the sanction would fail and they would hurt Europe instead of Russia, I was told that this was an effort to undermine the sanctions.
	So it's all commitment to narratives.
	We have some phrases we have to say.
	And all dissent kind of gets just brushed off as picking the Russian side or talking Kremlin talking points, all this nonsense.
	So I think it was predictable.
	That's insane.
	I mean, we're living in a time of incredible irrational censorship.
	And anyone who dares to think rationally and ask questions rooted in history and patterns or economics is labeled a Russian sympathizer.
	But let me ask you about energy, because Western Europe has suffered a catastrophic loss of access to affordable, abundant energy from Russia.
	The Nord Stream pipelines destruction, which I believe was carried out by the United States.
	But I know opinions differ.
	Nevertheless, that really cut off a critical artery of energy to Germany and other countries.
	And then now Russia and China announcing the new pipeline, the power of Siberia II, which will pipe, I think, 50 million cubic meters of gas from the Yamal fields in northwestern Russia.
	The fields that used to supply gas to Western Europe will now be piped through Mongolia into northern China to power China's AI data centers and industrial robot factories and everything else.
	What does this indicate to you in the big picture, the complete reshifting of affordable energy supplies for Western Europe?
	No, I think you're completely correct.
	And this is why I also argue that it would hurt the Europeans more, because Europe's economic partnership with the Russians was in great advantage to Europe.
	That is, they had seemingly unlimited amount of cheap energy, which they could send to Europe.
	And given that their main objective used to be creating a greater Europe, that means Europe which includes Russia, they tend to prefer often Europe and the United States as partners in developing energy fields, all of this.
	So they sent us energy.
	We exported the product and different manufactured goods.
	And so this was good for our economies, especially for the German economy, as you mentioned.
	This was the economic powerhouse of Europe.
	And a lot of their industries are quite energy intensive.
	That is, they're heavy industries.
	Now, with cutting themselves off deliberately from Russian energy means that they can't compete anymore.
	I mean, they have a lot of problems, but one of them, one of the bigger ones, is obviously the lack of access to cheap energy.
	So you're seeing now massive deindustrialization in Germany.
	And you had some offers from the United States under this Inflation Reduction Act to these failing industries.
	They can move across the Atlantic.
	And some are going to China.
	So overall, Europe is not, well, it's going out of business.
	And how are the Russians going to react to this?
	Many people think that they're just going to try to wait out the sanctions and then try to kiss and make up with the West.
	But again, as I wrote a decade ago, the main objective for the Russians is to now reorient their economy towards the East.
	And any sanctions will just be used as an opportunity to intensify this process.
	And this is why you ended up now with this.
	Well, first in 2000, after the coup in 2014, you had the power of Siberia.
	And now you have this signing up the power of Siberia II recently now in China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting.
	Now, this is quite dramatic.
	And as you said, this is not from the Asian part of Russia.
	This is from the Arctic, from the Yamal region with gas, which was supposed to fuel the European economies for decades.
	Instead, the Russians have now signed agreement and they will send all this gas, all this energy to China for the next decades.
	And as you also correctly said, this will fuel Chinese data centers.
	Now, if you want to be prepared, it's very critical.
	If you want to be prepared for the new industrial revolution consisting of artificial intelligence and you need all these data centers, and this is going to be very energy intensive.
	So if you want to compete in this high-tech era, you need access to cheap energy, as you did in all industrial revolutions.
	The problem for many countries across Europe, but also the United States, is that energy costs tend to be increasing.
	And this affects the way people vote.
	And overall, it's going to be difficult to stay in the AI race with this.
	I mean, in one place, the energy costs are dropping.
	And this is China.
	They're building out in all areas.
	And now, of course, the Russians are giving them this massive injection.
	So this was just stupid on every level.
	And it was predictably stupid.
	And if we had had free speech in Europe, still we had the ability to dissent and talk, we could have maybe prepared ourselves and avoided some of these worst consequences.
	But yeah, but I don't think we do.
	Well, well said.
	And of course, all of us in America, we're always rooting for free speech for Europeans.
	But we're always disappointed by what actually happens, especially in the UK, which I'll get to in a moment.
	But about the electricity, the number one input into data centers is electricity.
	And the cost of that input largely determines the efficiency of your operation.
	You put electricity in and microchips, you get out intelligence.
	You get cognition and you get superintelligence at some point here, many experts believe in the next few years.
	Well, in the United States, especially on the Eastern power grid, the cost of electricity in some areas is now 35 cents a kilowatt hour.
	It's headed to 50 cents a kilowatt hour.
	In China, they will be able to provide that from 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour.
	So we're talking one-fifth or less of the cost of just power alone compared to the United States.
	So a very strong competitive advantage in China, meaning they can build AI models for a fraction of the cost of the U.S., even in terms of comparable output in terms of cognitive capabilities.
	What's your take on that?
	Oh, I couldn't agree more.
	That's just the two things you need.
	You need powerful data processing, which is the race for the computer chips, all of this, which the Chinese are not just catching up, but being able to pursue technological sovereignty in this area.
	And the second is access to data, of course, but also energy.
	You need energy.
	And this is why the Chinese will, I think, take leadership in this.
	And this will encompass all parts of the economy, because often one argues that the current industrial revolution is essentially everything plus AI.
	And I think this is to a large extent correct, because in this, what they call the fourth industrial revolution, it largely organizes around when digital technologies can be used to manipulate the physical world.
	So you see, all industries, all aspects of societies will be influenced by this.
	So to take the lead here is going to be quite important.
	And this is why the Chinese and the Russians are laser focused, because if you fall behind in industrial revolutions, this is what can crush a country and a civilization.
	And in the first industrial revolution, the Chinese and the Russians, they did fall behind.
	And this allowed them to be crushed in the mid-19th century.
	That is in 1853.
	The British and French went in and defeated the Russians in Crimea.
	This was a huge, humiliating defeat, which had many consequences.
	And in China, they defeated the Chinese in the opium wars, and they had their century of humiliation, which they've now recovered from.
	But this was linked to falling behind in the Industrial Revolution.
	This Industrial Revolution, both the Russians and Chinese are focusing on technological sovereignty, avoiding excessive dependence.
	And so they're doing quite well.
	I think the Americans, despite the energy problems and many other issues, I think they will also come on top.
	I mean, but your police, I think it's no, I don't see any good indicators at the moment.
	Let me share something with you personally.
	You may not know this about me, but I lived in Taiwan.
	I speak some amount of Chinese, and my company is very Chinese language capable.
	And we also build, we built our own AI engine called Enoch, and it's specifically trained on nutrition and phytochemistry and disease prevention through nutrition, etc.
	Well, we found that the largest repository of information in this area was actually in a simplified Chinese language in China.
	And so we were able to acquire a massive amount of scientific research from out of China in the Chinese language.
	We use AI to translate it into English.
	We use the English to train the model.
	So our model is now the number one model in the world in our testing on nutrition and phytonutrients and so on.
	That's due to Chinese research because Chinese researchers are 500% more numerous than American researchers, especially on these topics.
	And the Chinese researchers are less biased because they don't have the big pharma overlay where pharmaceutical giants determine the science funding of whether you get a grant is whether you're promoting a drug or not.
	China actually does real core botanical research.
	Maybe that's some of the history of traditional Chinese medicine.
	But we found a goldmine of knowledge out of China for our AI model.
	Does that surprise you?
	Or is that in line with what you already know?
	No, that sounds very much correct.
	I mean, the China that exists today is not the same China as 10 years ago.
	China's developing very fast.
	And this is also why I argue that this new distribution of power, this rise of new centers, the problem often, not just in Europe, but the United States, is also a tendency to always look at it as a threat.
	And I think a lot of the problems with the way we address China and the business opportunities which you suggest is I think we have been, the past 500 years, been kind of based on the West has based itself on with a dominance.
	And it's very difficult to imagine a world where we're going to have equals outside the Western world.
	But again, there are great opportunities if we work together.
	And this is why, as well, at this Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting, I would have loved to see, if not at the meeting, then after the meetings, have the United States there as well, because three of the four largest economies in the world in terms of purchasing power parity was present there.
	The Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians.
	Who was missing from the top four here was the United States.
	And I think if they learn to harmonize interest, try to mitigate where the interests compete and try to shift from this unipolar order we had over the past 30 years, which is already over, and organize around a common multipolar system, which can benefit all, I think would be, yeah, everyone would gain.
	And as you said, that there's a lot of ways that the US could prosper if they would cooperate as well closer with China.
	So I think seeing the rise of all these other powers merely as a threat is resulting in missing out on a lot of opportunities.
	And instead, one can't prevent a multipolar world from emerging, no matter how hard one tries.
	But the threat I see now is that a multipolar world is emerging in opposition to the United States.
	Instead, the U.S. could be like first among equals almost.
	But instead, it's now the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians, they're all now carrying more and more grudge towards the United States.
	And this is very, very, very unfortunate.
	It doesn't have to be this way.
	It's a critical point that you make, Professor Deeson.
	And I think I'll use that opportunity to state that both you and I, we want, like I want America to do well.
	You want Europe, you want Norway to do well.
	We are not against our own countries.
	But we see that unless our countries are able to participate as equals in a multipolar world where trade is encouraged rather than war, rather than even economic warfare, if trade is encouraged, then we can all enjoy increased abundance.
	But if we end up in these wars, the punitive tariffs, Trump is making enemies out of our friends.
	And both Trump and Western Europe are going to end up in an economic isolation situation where nobody wants to use the Euro.
	Nobody wants to use the dollar.
	Nobody wants to use the yen.
	Nobody wants to buy the treasury debt of the UK or Germany for that matter.
	That will harm our people, your people and my people.
	They will be harmed by these policies.
	So we're actually fighting for our people by trying to help our leaders understand that we need to work in a multipolar world.
	Does that sound correct to you?
	I don't mean to put words in your mouth.
	What would you say about that?
	No, I agree.
	And I think this is why it's important to recognize the world as it is.
	I always make this point that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I understand why many countries and many people saw an opportunity with the unipolar moment, that is, with only one center of power.
	Because the argument could be organized around two principles.
	One, with only one center of power, the United States, well, organized in the collective West, it would end great power rivalry because there wouldn't anymore be any competition between the great powers because there would only be one.
	Second, because the US is a liberal democracy, it would seek to elevate these values in the international system and make it more benign.
	So I understand all the optimism and the idealism around it.
	However, it's also worth looking at what the critics said.
	And they expected two things.
	That is, over time, the United States, as well as its partners, would exhaust themselves.
	That is, all the resources would be spent on maintaining this unipolar moment.
	So domestically, we would expect economic decline, more poverty, economic inequality, social problems, political polarization.
	And at the same time, because one center of power can only persist if the rising powers are kept down.
	So you would expect other rising powers, be it Russia, China, India, Brazil, all of this would then seek to collectively balance the United States.
	So this was the expectation.
	Now, I think it's 30 years plus later we can conclude that this is what has happened.
	Our economies aren't doing well.
	Society isn't doing well.
	Our political systems are, well, obviously not well either.
	And we see now a multipolar, prosperous part of the world building up, and we're not part of it.
	And indeed, some of it is becoming aimed against us simply because we're seen as attempting to go after them and break it.
	My argument is a very pro-Western one.
	That is, how should the West adjust to the current realities?
	What does the West look like which is not hegemonic, which doesn't dominate the world anymore?
	Because it feels good and pretend to be patriotic if one just pretends that we can get it back, but this will only accelerate our decline and destruction.
	Instead, we can realign, adjust to the multipolar realities, and there's a lot of opportunities there.
	There's a lot of countries like Russia.
	There's no reason we need to have a conflict.
	This is not the Soviet Union.
	There's no communists there.
	They're a traditional European country.
	Their main goal is, you know, it has nothing to do with communism or empire.
	We can make peace.
	We will have a lot of disagreements, but we should focus on where we can align our interests and where we can mitigate the competing interests.
	And this idea that the only way you can solve a conflict with Russia, again, the world's largest nuclear power is war, well, it's kind of insane.
	And I just, and I heard that this was an anti-American argument by some colleagues in Norway.
	But, you know, do anyone think that this is really sustainable if one think we were in the 90s, all the Chinese, Russians, their main foreign policy goal was to align closer with the U.S. Now the United States is $37 trillion in the hole, having growing social problems, political instability.
	Its partnerships, alliances are beginning to fall a bit apart.
	You know, there's no going back here.
	I think this has been exhausted.
	You know, one has to adjust to reality.
	The cost of not doing it will be immense.
	So I consider this a very pro-American and pro-Western argument to say recognize reality and see the opportunities instead of trying to fight it.
	Well, I like your phrase that we need to adjust to reality.
	And yet, I believe, I'm saying this as an American, I believe that our Trump administration here is not operating in economic reality.
	And I want to be clear.
	I mean, I have a lot of ties to the people around Trump.
	I was invited to attend Trump's inauguration.
	I was recently invited to the White House.
	Not to meet with Trump, by the way, but just to meet with some other lawmakers there.
	And I said, no, I'm busy.
	I'm trying to save America.
	I'm not going to go to DC.
	I need to be in Texas doing what I'm doing here.
	But my point is that Trump and the people around him, Besant, Lutnik, Rubio, etc.
	And this is not a personal attack on them, but I believe their economic theories are rooted in a bygone era.
	Their economic theories are hegemonic Western dominance, which is we go around the world with our aircraft carriers and our bombs and our CIA and our assassins and whatever, and we just threaten everybody into compliance.
	And they're still trying that, Professor Deason.
	They still think that's going to work and it just doesn't like that's over.
	That is no longer the operating system of the world's economy, but they don't get it yet.
	I'm frustrated.
	Yeah, I think what happened with India should have proven this because the main idea there was let's just put the pressure on India, threaten it with sanctions unless it cut its ties with Russia.
	And again, they did the opposite.
	And they said, well, we're not going to abide by any of these secondary sanctions.
	We'll continue to trade with the Russians.
	And then they went off to the SEO.
	Well, Prime Minister Modi went off to the SEO meeting in China and first time in seven years trying to improve relations there.
	And Trump's reaction was, oh, he has chosen China and Russia over us.
	Well, I hope they'll be happy.
	But this wasn't the point.
	It's not that they chose China and Russia over the United States.
	It's just the United States was the only one who was demanding that they pick because in a unipolar world, like the United States would be the only game in town.
	But in a multipolar world, you can preserve a lot of political autonomy if you diversify your economic ties.
	Again, India doesn't want to only try trade with Russia and China.
	That would make them excessively dependent.
	They would like to trade with everyone.
	The Russians as well, they're not the one to cut the economic ties with the Europeans and Americans.
	They also want to diversify.
	They don't want excessive dependence on China.
	But it was the United States that said, us or them.
	The Chinese and Russians never asked the Indians to choose.
	And the Indians do not want to choose.
	If they choose, they would have to be less prosperous because they would only have, well, less than half of the trading partners.
	And also, they would no longer be able to have proper political autonomy.
	Because if you're only dependent on one actor which is more powerful than you, that asymmetrical economic interdependence can be converted into political influence.
	And they're looking at Europe because we took that deal with the Americans that cut yourself off from Russia, China, Iran.
	We did all of this.
	And now America was the only trade partner we have.
	And when Trump called over the Europeans to come to his golf course and sign whatever he put in front of them, they signed it.
	All the EU officials said this was a horrible deal to sign, but we have to sign it.
	So this is not what India wants.
	They don't want to become a vassal.
	And this is the main attractiveness of small, medium-sized countries, as well as large ones like India.
	They can have more independence if they diversify their economic ties.
	But they can't get trapped then.
	It makes me wonder how Taiwan and Japan feel right now, also, with sort of choosing the United States as their military and economic and political partners and then getting hit with tariffs or sometimes currency manipulations or the Trump administration is trying to push Taiwan into manipulating its own currency to favor the United States.
	But you mentioned the secondary tariffs.
	I was really shocked recently when Trump attempted what I would call tertiary tariffs, when he said to the UK, we want you to sanction India because India buys energy from Russia.
	And I'm like, now, wait a second.
	This is this, you know, three orders of magnitude.
	I mean, that could involve any country on the planet.
	What gives the U.S. the right to tell country A to sanction country B for buying product C from country D?
	It just seems completely insane.
	Yeah, no, it doesn't work indeed.
	And this is only something that will trigger more countries to seek to reduce their dependence on the United States.
	So it's very counterproductive.
	But a lot of this, I mean, it wouldn't be unique to the United States.
	There's a lot of theories in political economy where they speculated that something like this would likely happen.
	I remember reading articles written early 1980s, some late 70s, where they made a point that the U.S. ability to act as a benign hegemon, that is in the economic sphere, to have a liberal international economic system where everyone has access to the technologies and industries.
	They can sail the seas.
	No one will seize their ships.
	They can use any banks, currencies, like this very liberal international economic system.
	It was under the benign hegemon of the United States.
	But this is when there was a lot of economic power concentrated in the United States.
	And the U.S. had an incentive to encourage trust in the U.S. Now, what many people predicted then, 45, 50 years ago, was, well, what happens when the U.S. is in relative decline and you have new centers of power emerging?
	Because in such a situation, the U.S. would have an incentive to preserve its dominant position.
	It would have an incentive to prevent the rise of others.
	So it would weaponize and essentially abuse its administrative control over the international economy.
	So it would begin, for example, to seize oil tankers from Iran on the seas.
	It would have access piracy on the high seas.
	We're just stealing ships.
	Stealing gold, stealing the sovereign funds of the Russian central bank.
	That's right.
	Cutting off China's access to semiconductors and key technologies.
	I mean, shutting down SWIFT for countries the U.S. doesn't like.
	I mean, and but my point is when this happens, what happens?
	Will countries just fall in line and bow to the United States?
	Well, some did, like Japan in the 80s, because they had high security dependence.
	But for other countries, they're saying no.
	And indeed, the pressure is only incentivizing them to decouple faster.
	And that's, from my perspective, is what happened with India.
	And yeah, the one exception is the Europeans.
	And that's partly because of the war in Ukraine, that it terrified the Europeans.
	And the Americans are the main security provider.
	So the U.S. can convert this security dependence into both political and economic loyalties.
	So the Europeans will do as they're told.
	But earlier on, you mentioned the energy aspect and the destruction of Nord Stream, which you think the United States was behind.
	And I share that conviction, by the way.
	Keep in mind what actually happened, because it's quite remarkable when the rest of the world looks at Europe.
	We can't talk about it, so we don't realize it.
	But when Nord Stream was destroyed, we all had to say, oh, all the signs are pointing towards Russia, that they destroyed their own gas pipelines.
	And we had talk about this being an attack on NATO, whether or not this would be war.
	The most dramatic things.
	We used this to escalate the war in Ukraine.
	We used it to militarize the Baltic Sea and anger the Russians further.
	And then later on, we find out that, well, we knew all along it wasn't the Russians.
	But we have a new story that the Ukrainians did it.
	We tried to stop them, but it was too late.
	And that's where the story ends.
	And now nobody wants to talk about it because there's no good narrative.
	But what they now saying, then, the only thing you can conclude from this is that they knew that it wasn't the Russians, but they lied anyways to escalate the war in Ukraine so they could get more of the militarization of the Baltic and get more loyalty from the Europeans.
	And in Germany, they don't talk about it.
	The politicians, the media, they don't want to talk about the Nord Stream because now they ask, you know, who destroyed it?
	Was it Ukrainians or the Americans?
	Well, either way, it's our friends.
	And so if there's no good narrative, what do you do in Europe?
	Don't talk about it anymore.
	Here in the States, we view Germany's current leaders as, I mean, frankly, we just call them a suicide cult or economic suicide cult.
	And, you know, we prefer the AFD party members who are also apparently being hunted or removed or killed or whatever is happening there.
	We don't know exactly.
	But it strikes me that Western Europe has, especially out of the UK and also Macron in France, they are not living in reality.
	They talk very aggressively and fiercely about how they're going to militarily defeat Russia, but they have no means to achieve that.
	They talk about how they're going to rebuild their economies, but they've lost their affordable energy supply.
	They talk about how they're going to make their nations great, but in effect, they are at war with their own cultures and their own people in so many cases.
	Is there some kind of bizarre, no, I'm not trying to get you in trouble.
	Obviously, you're already under enough attack from Europeans.
	But from my perspective as an American and a very independent Texan, is there an affliction among the Western European leaders?
	Do you have to be insane to run for office in the UK or something?
	What is going on?
	Why can't they protect their own nation's interests?
	Well, it's hard to say, but when you talk about Europe losing its mind, it's worth noting that it could just be the leaders because the leaders are not that popular.
	Indeed, I would argue that there's a massive legitimacy crisis among the political leadership.
	So you have, as you mentioned, Germany, you have Chancellor Blackrock Mertz, who is immensely unpopular in the UK.
	You have Starmer also, just very widely despised, and of course, Macron.
	So how do they hold on to power?
	Well, the most popular party now in Germany is IFD, which was only established in 2013.
	And so how do they deal with this, this new opposition which is against the wars and wants to make friends with Russia and try to re-industrialize?
	Well, they labeled it an extremist organization.
	So now the intelligence agencies go after it.
	And the media politicians are openly talking about whether or not to ban it.
	This is the largest, most popular party in Germany.
	And in France, they arrested the opposition leader, Le Pen.
	And so in Romania, they reversed the election results because someone claimed it was Russian interference.
	It wasn't, but nonetheless, he has to go.
	And it's just they lie over and over.
	And same as Macron, because all narratives kind of have to serve the same objective, especially in Ukraine.
	They have to keep the war going.
	So you have these speeches by Macron where they say, oh, listen, the Russians, they're not winning.
	Look how little territory they have taken.
	But, you know, everyone knows that this is a war of attrition.
	The Russians aren't prioritizing territory.
	They're prioritizing the destruction of the Ukrainian army and armed to the teeth by NATO.
	And they're doing this.
	And once the army is destroyed and the front lines aren't that well defended, the Russians don't have to send a lot of manpower and equipment to take well-fortified defensive lines.
	They will just walk in.
	And That's what's beginning to happen now.
	So they're deceiving all along the economic state, the military, the world, the whole world is against Russia.
	It's not.
	This is just for domestic consumption.
	And people are starting to see through this.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And I agree with you.
	And I have nothing against the citizens of Germany or France or Poland or the UK.
	And we saw a massive outpouring protest in London just in the last few days.
	Potentially millions of people are protesting against Kirst Armour and censorship and government corruption.
	But if I'm a citizen of Germany today, let's say if I owned a business that needs to use energy to manufacture something, I'm not thinking that Russia is at war with me.
	I'm thinking that my own government is at war against me.
	Like, why is my own government blocking our ability to have access to affordable energy to create jobs and to build products and to export products out of Germany?
	The impediments to my success as a German business owner are not overseas.
	They're right there in Berlin.
	At least that's what I'm thinking if I'm a German citizen.
	Well, I think more people are thinking like this because they have enough mismanagement by their own governments.
	I mean, nobody really thinks, who thinks that Russia's planning to invade Poland?
	I mean, it is absurd.
	And again, there's so much data as well.
	It's obvious that they invaded because NATO tried to pull Ukraine into the orbit.
	I mean, this was predicted by many people.
	Even in Germany, the former chancellor, Angela Markil, she even warned that if we tried to bring Ukraine into NATO, the Russians would interpret this as a declaration of war.
	This is why they were cautious back in 2008.
	And now we're pretending as if, no, no, no, this is completely unprovoked.
	They're not worried about NATO expansion.
	I mean, in the United States, you have, well, many leading ambassadors, diplomats.
	You have a former CIA director, William Burns, who also argued then back in 2008, if we try to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then likely there would be a civil war, which there was, and the Russians would then intervene, likely on the side of the Ukrainians in the east, which they did.
	So it's like this was predictable.
	But also people start to see through some of the stories they're being told because when we escalate this proxy war against the world's largest nuclear power, it's always out of altruism.
	It's always we really just want to be good to Ukraine.
	We want to help them.
	Meanwhile, in reality, we see that the polls show that the vast majority of Ukrainians, the last one I saw from Gallup was 69% of Ukrainians, want immediate negotiations to put an end to the war.
	But our leaders in Europe, they don't even want to sit down and talk to Russia.
	They say that this is dangerous.
	It might embolden Putin.
	So we're not going to sit down and talk to him.
	Instead, we're backing Zelensky, which is hunting Ukrainians to send to the front line.
	So it's just this idea that we're here to help Ukraine.
	I mean, it's the people who actually look into the data, and you can go to BBC or any Western media, which I also cite mostly in my book.
	The Ukrainians didn't, majority of Ukrainians didn't support the coup in 2014.
	They didn't want the intelligence services and all to be hijacked by Western powers.
	73% voted for Zelensky in 2019 to implement the peace mandate, and he was bullied into reversing this.
	I mean, time and time again, we see that the will of the Ukrainians is ignored because we in NATO label it capitulation and being weak on Russia.
	So it's easy to be tough on Russia when we're using Ukrainians and throwing them into the grave.
	Let me mention some of your books available on Amazon and booksellers everywhere.
	One is called The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order.
	I think is that the most recent one, Professor?
	Yes, that's the most recent one.
	Okay.
	And then there's the think tank racket, managing the information war with Russia, Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia.
	I'm curious, do you speak Russian?
	Poorly, yes.
	Poorly, yeah.
	Okay.
	I hear you.
	Yeah.
	I speak some Chinese, but I can't read it.
	So whenever I'm in Taiwan, I have to ask people what the road signs say.
	Oh, no, I can read road signs.
	I just meant when I used to work there, but when I was teaching, they didn't want me to teach in Russian.
	They wanted me to teach in English so that students would be more proficient in English as well.
	So I didn't learn proper.
	Understandable.
	Yeah, but I lived a few times.
	I lived in Russia in 2006 and then 2011 and 12 and then 2018, 19 and 20.
	So I did catch on some of it, but I couldn't teach a class even if I would read it off a sheet, unfortunately.
	Well, and I find that people like you and I and most of our audience, they're also very sophisticated and well-traveled people.
	But those who have ventured outside their home country, they tend to have the most accurate reality-based perspective on what's happening with our world.
	Whereas those who have never left home, it's a very distorted view.
	But I'd like to ask your view on where this goes with Ukraine, given that Trump is essentially saying he's trying to extricate, I think, the United States from the conflict.
	He's trying to essentially dump it on European leaders.
	He hasn't yet been able to fully achieve that.
	But you recently said Zelensky is going to have to make a deal.
	Yeah, that's kind of obvious at some point.
	Where do you think this is going?
	Well, if you can just briefly say something related to what you said about travel abroad, it helps to take a more critical view.
	I think it's important because this is one of the problems, I think, in international security affairs.
	That is in human nature.
	It's in our instinct to organize in groups.
	That's in-group us versus the out-group the other.
	And whenever there's external threats, we feel a strong impulse to fall in line and support the home team, which is a good human instinct.
	You want to come around the group and seek a common defense and security if you see external threats.
	The problem is in international security, we have something called security competition.
	All countries are competing for security.
	And if you want to have peace, you have to manage and reduce the security competition.
	So this is why the first thing you want to do is put yourself in the shoes of the opponents.
	That is, you know, what are the Russians worried about?
	What are the Chinese worried about?
	You know, not everything has to end in a war if you can reduce their security concerns as well.
	Because we're all threatening each other's security.
	If America builds missiles, the Chinese will be worried.
	Chinese build missiles, America will be worried.
	But the problem is we don't do this at all.
	We never ever, I mean, in Europe, ever talk about Russian security concerns, Iranian, Chinese.
	This is near treason.
	But if you can't mitigate the security concern of your opponent, then security can only be achieved through victory on the battlefield.
	And that's why war is the only approach we have to conflict.
	The Wolfowitz doctrine and the point of view of America has been that Russia doesn't have a right to have its own interests.
	That's the default position.
	Yeah, and this is part of the problem with the ideology, because liberal democracy was supposed to elevate some benign values and make this international system better.
	But instead, we see it fueled ideological fundamentalism because now we say, well, we're democracies, we're good, the other side is bad.
	So for example, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I would say, well, I think the United States would do exactly the same.
	If China or Russia tried to bring Mexico into military alliance, put its long-range missiles in Mexico, build up military bases there, take over its intelligence services, as we did in Ukraine.
	What would the United States do?
	Well, of course, it would react very much like Russia is.
	But if you put this hypothesis or premise to someone, they would say, oh, well, we're a democracy.
	There's no reason to worry about us on the Russian border, but we have to worry about Russia because they're authoritarian.
	So we're leaning into the ideology.
	Instead of being a source for stability and peace, we're making it into this uncompromising struggle of good versus evil, where the conclusion is that any diplomacy is treason while defeating them on the battlefield is the path to peace.
	Yeah, diplomacy is treason.
	Right.
	If your national leaders believe that diplomacy is treason, then you will never have peace, which is what you're saying.
	Well, the former Norwegian prime minister, which was the NATO Secretary General, Leon Stoltenberg, he coined that term, weapons are the path to peace, which is a horrible slogan for a defensive alliance, but nothing seems to make much sense anymore.
	Back to my question, though, how do you think this ends up?
	Bit of a detour there.
	No, that's good.
	Well, I do think that he would, you know, he still would like, I think, to contain the Russians, but I think he wants to outsource this whole thing to the Europeans.
	Because the main objective, I think, of the United States is it sees the multipolar world emerging.
	China is the main sorry is the main adversary.
	So, you know, ever since Obama, he said, you know, we have to pivot to Asia.
	If you pivot to somewhere, you have to pivot away from something.
	And the main area they want to pivot away from is Europe.
	I mean, it's not the center of the world anymore.
	It's not really relevant economically, politically, or well, anything.
	So they would like to reduce their presence in Europe and shift their focus and resources towards the East.
	So does this mean that the Americans have to give up on containing Russia?
	Well, not necessarily.
	I think it can mean two things.
	Yes.
	One, it means try to make friends with Russia, but alternatively, just outsource the hostility to the Europeans.
	They still want to confront Russia.
	So now the United States has diplomatic efforts with Russia.
	They want to improve bilateral relations.
	I think the Russians seize that Trump simply, you know, he wants to not give away weapons to Ukraine, but instead sell and make money.
	So it's not as if they will become best of friends, but still, this is better than Biden.
	So they will take this at least as a step in the right direction.
	But yeah, I mean, imagine if you see the Ukraine war failing, it's being lost.
	This is going to be a horrible disaster.
	And then the United States can say, well, we don't want to focus on this anymore.
	And the Europeans step up and offer, well, we can take over.
	And they will then have to take the blame when the whole thing falls apart.
	It's a pretty good deal.
	And I think that's the direction the U.S. is going.
	There are some analysts who believe, and some I've interviewed, like Tom Luongo believes that Trump is actually at war with the city of London, that Trump's policies are designed to weaken or even destroy the Great Britain power base there for a number of reasons, including the fact that MI6 ran the Russia hoax against Trump, by the way.
	But there are other economic reasons, and perhaps this explains the repatriation of gold to New York out of London and the LBMA, etc.
	Do you give any credence to that theory that Trump is secretly at war with London?
	It could be.
	He doesn't seem to be too happy about, well, a lot of the Europeans.
	He also said the same about the EU, that it was developed to screw us, he said.
	And they're worse than China.
	So obviously, he does have a problem with it.
	But with Britain, I think he's also well aware that Starmer and them, they were campaigning essentially for Kamala, not against him.
	And the Russia Gate issue, I don't think it's forgotten either.
	So, no, it is quite possible.
	Again, it's hard to read Trump at times.
	I mean, he talks a lot and he shifts from one day to the other, but if you look at what he actually does, there seems to be a bit more consistency.
	And so it is possible.
	And again, I think the whole way, I mean, it's just not just Trump.
	If you look in the United States on the conservative side, I think there is a shift in the attitude towards Russia because, well, look at it like this.
	After the Cold War was over, we decided to redivide Europe anyways to keep the Russians on the outside.
	And we then reinvented the ideological divide to justify the redivision of Europe.
	So we said, oh, the world is divided between liberal democracies and authoritarian states.
	And we said, well, Russia belongs to this camp.
	This is why we have a divided Europe organized around the EU and NATO.
	Now, so this is kind of how every conflict in the world has to be seen.
	We don't have to know where the country is on the map, but we're told it's liberal democracy versus authoritarianism.
	So this is how you engineer consent and public support.
	But Russia is not a communist state.
	It's becoming a Christian conservative country.
	So when you see the Tucker Carlsons and other people on the political right, they're envisioning the divisions of the world differently.
	They don't see liberal democracy versus authoritarianism because, let's be honest, we're becoming quite authoritarian now in the West as well.
	Instead, they're seeing it as, well, almost liberal loons going a bit too far versus conservatives.
	And I would categorize Russia now as a very conservative state.
	They went through this revolutionary regime in the Soviet Union, and they would like now to revive a lot of their traditional Christian values.
	And yeah, so this is not that unlike Hungary or Poland or others who want to restore what was lost during the communist era.
	So I think for many, they don't see it as many conservatives in the US and Europe have noted.
	They don't see the divide being liberal democracies versus authoritarian, but they see it as being patriots versus cosmopolitans or conservatives versus this woke liberals.
	So I think the whole way that they're looking at the world has shifted.
	So when they look towards Germany and the UK, how they're running their country, seeing that they're kind of uprooting their traditional heritage and fighting this forever liberal wars, which is ruining their economies, I think they don't see this as necessarily playing for our team anymore.
	And I wouldn't dismiss that Trump sees it in this way as well.
	Okay, last question for you, Professor.
	And again, thank you for your time today.
	It's a real honor to be able to speak with you.
	I want to ask you about BRICS settlement systems and currencies.
	And of course, we have the SCO meeting recently, but the BRICS nations who are increasingly moving away from using the dollar as a settlement currency.
	Most trade between India and Russia, for example, is carried out in their own domestic currencies.
	And trade imbalances between many of these nations, including China, may be settled with gold, it seems, or gold sort of gold claims, you know, claims to the gold that's in the vault in whatever country.
	The fact that the West has effectively stolen $300 billion from Russia seems to be the worst economic mistake in history if you want to run the infrastructure of international currency and settlement.
	How rapidly do you think non-dollar trade will eclipse the dollar trade that currently exists on our planet?
	Well, I think you're correct that this is the main, that we don't appreciate what a shock this is to the international economic system.
	We often just taper over it with this different moral argument saying, well, Russia's an aggressor.
	It's just reasonable.
	They have to pay reparations to Ukraine.
	But this has never been done before.
	This would upset everything.
	You can argue the same with Iraq, that, oh, the United States should pay reparation to Iraq.
	But if every country around the world starts seizing American assets and sovereign funds to hand it over to Iraq or give it to someone who's fighting against America, I mean, it would be absurd.
	The whole economic trust in the international economic system would fall apart.
	And that's exactly what's happening.
	I mean, in Europe, they created some narratives that, oh, no, no, we're not stealing the actual, we're just stealing the proceeds from it.
	So that's not theft.
	But it is theft.
	They have stolen and not just freezing it, but stolen it.
	And this is a huge concern because the Chinese know they're holding a lot of dollars and they know that they're next.
	But also countries like India would be worried because we might go after them as well if they don't fall in line.
	So overall, there's two main concerns.
	Again, Europe is a basket case as well, but only to folks on the United States.
	I think they look towards the debt, which is unsustainable, but it's also being weaponized.
	So you never know if this is actually still your money.
	So this is a huge motivation for why they would like to shift into different currencies, either trade in national currencies, do something with the gold, possibly establish some common currency.
	But again, the world has been on the dollar for so long.
	It's a bit of a learning curve.
	And even the Chinese, they do often like to use the dollar as well.
	So they're not ready to ditch it just yet.
	But they are when this, I mean, we can see where this is heading.
	It's going towards a cliff.
	So when things go bad, they don't want to be in a position like in 2008 where there's no alternative.
	So they want to be able to lean into some options.
	And I think once you have this new economic architecture being built with new centers of technology, new supply chains, these transportation corridors, banks and currencies, and payment system, alternatives to SWIFT, you would like to facilitate it in some kind of an institutional arrangement.
	And this is where institutions like BRICS come in, but also the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
	So they're developing development banks and their main idea is to become less developed, sorry, less dependent on the political West.
	So this is when I'm arguing against putting more sanctions on the Russians, like warning against stealing their sovereign funds.
	For me, this is, you know, often they say, oh, you're supporting the Russians then, but this is suicide.
	No one will trust us ever again, and they're not.
	So it's a massive mistake, I think.
	It is.
	It's a reputation suicide of the Western financial infrastructure.
	I mean, what other country would not conclude that we have to have an alternative based on what the West and Europe is doing to Russia's holdings?
	Anyway, thank you so much, Professor.
	It's been an honor to speak with you today.
	I really appreciate your time.
	Let me mention your website or your Twitter handle is Glenn underscore Deeson, D-I-E-S-E-N.
	And I encourage people to follow you.
	I'm going to click follow right here.
	Gosh, I thought I did follow you.
	Maybe X unfollowed you from me.
	I don't know.
	I've had that happen before.
	Anyway, I'm following you now.
	And then also, we've got your books here on Amazon and other booksellers, the Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order.
	Is there anything else you'd like to add before we wrap this up?
	No, well, please follow here if you want to check out my YouTube channel as well.
	YouTube, yes.
	I think mostly, yeah, no, I got new interviews every day.
	So, yeah.
	And of course, to you, thank you so much for inviting me on your program.
	It's a great privilege.
	It's an honor to have you on.
	You've been a great educator.
	I've learned a lot from you over the years of listening to you.
	And I think that economics is the key area of knowledge that will help us understand the world.
	Because what is economics but the study of human behavior involving value, right?
	I mean, it's so thank you so much for all that you do.
	Have a great rest of your day.
	Thank you for joining us.
	Thanks.
	All right, folks, that was Professor Glenn Deason, just an extraordinary, brilliant mind and a courageous voice who is, I believe his convictions are rooted in reality.
	So you would do well to follow his channel and read his books and learn from him.
	And as always, feel free to repost this interview on other channels and platforms.
	I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighteon.com.
	And thank you for joining us today.
	Take care, everybody.
	Power up with our organic whey protein powder, a complete protein packed with amino acids, non-GMO, and lab-tested for purity.
	Stock up now for your survival pantry at at healthrangerstore.com.

▲