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

02:20:17

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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Righty on bring it on Righty Oh let's get it all righty on stay strong Well, all right, welcome to Brighton 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 uh regional civil war, maybe a breakup, you know, of states, maybe the formation of new uh regional nation states, maybe the collapse of the dollar and the end of uh Washington, DC control over the states.
	You know, something like that.
	And I've often wondered, especially this year, I've often wondered if uh you know what what could possibly make that prediction true.
	It just didn't seem likely, and uh often my predictions are too early.
	That is uh sometimes the case, and and so you know, I was thinking, well, maybe it's gonna 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 I'm not claiming that this is um you know a confirmation of my prediction.
	I 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 the this incredible divide, and also the just total insanity,
	the animalistic beast nature of what the radical left has become, or 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 uh also today you may have heard Jimmy Kimmel, his show got canceled by I think it's uh Sinclair or or ABC that said uh they they're gonna pull his show immediately and indefinitely he may never be on the air again.
	Now, Jimmy Kimmel, uh 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 uh Trump derangement syndrome, he's pushed anti-American values.
	You know, Jimmy Kimmel is a demon creature, in my view.
	And he absolutely should be taken off the air.
	And that's not cancel culture.
	I still believe that he has the right to speak on you know a video platform.
	Hey, he can he can join Brighton.
	How about that?
	He can come on Brighton, we won't censor him.
	He can tell his stupid anti-Trump jokes on Brighton.
	Uh so I I don't believe in uh outlawing his speech, but he's using you know the the airwaves of uh FCC licensed uh broadcast networks to spread uh hatred and indoctrination and brainwashing and to cast spells on the American people with his hatred and and his you know radical leftism.
	He's a radical leftist, even though he he may wear uh 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 Brighton, they can join social media, they 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, radical left disaster, as a major terrorist organization.
	I guess he could have declared a national disaster.
	Um Trump, uh, let's see, what else did he say?
	Um 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 traders.
	You know, he had Mike Pence as VP, etc.
	That's what a backstabber that guy turned out to be.
	You know, he had uh Bill Barr as AG or Jeff Sessions initially.
	You know, just just a weak-spined soy boy.
	Uh basically running interference for the deep state.
	I mean, Bill Barr is he is the deep state.
	I mean, he's like the 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 uh 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 you know, 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 uh even with Ben Shapiro there, they're going after the radical left, that's for sure.
	So uh this guest who is named Ryan Mauro Mauru, sorry, Mauru, he has a video clip here talking about tracing the money from the open society foundation to 54 groups engaged in domestic terrorism on US soil.
	So uh check out this little clip right here.
	According to George Soros' own files from his open society foundations, uh so myself, my colleagues at Capital Research Center basically went through as many grants of his, as many funding streams as we can find.
	And here's the smoking guns that we believe that President Trump, if he's informed of it, um, can use to go after Soros' uh network of hate in various ways.
	Uh, we traced over 80 million dollars 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.
	Uh and this is according to his own files, so it's rock solid.
	Uh, 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 be alive 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 fuse together several uh really extreme organizations.
	Uh, we found 400,000 going to them.
	Uh, and they openly boast of the fact that they threw down uh 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, uh, 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.
	Um, 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.
	Um, and so yeah, the the 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 there was Ryan, and you know, we have to be clear here also, because there are a lot of conservatives who are trying to conflate uh 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 uh 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 uh, I think a Marxist or a communist group, uh, with some people there with ties linked to Obama, by the way.
	Uh 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 uh were also later involved in influencing uh 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.
	Uh there's no question in my mind that his actions were designed to destroy America.
	Uh, 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.
	Uh 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 uh you know, really dedicated on doing that right now.
	And as a result, we are gonna see radical left-wing terrorism go ballistic with uh, 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 uh bombing.
	It could be churches, it could be uh conservative events, it could be there could be more shootings like with Charlie Kirk that who they targeted.
	Uh 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 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 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.
	Uh probably the entire Trump administration is going to be well saturated with dealing with this.
	You know, you're 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've 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 you want more surveillance.
	You know, it's a that 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 uh January 6th 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 you know.
	And by the way, when do all those people get their criminal records uh 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 isolation cell for four years.
	No, Jimmy Kimmel has the right to speak, just not the right to speak on the broadcast frequencies.
	Uh and he 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 Brideon, uh, 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 uh an uptick in terrorism and an uptick in violence all across America.
	Oh, also I forgot to mention that uh the Sinclair Broadcast Group that does own 24 ABC stations in uh 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 uh pivoted 180 degrees, and here we are.
	And now uh 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 gonna launch an investigation.
	It's uh uh who's it, Brandon Carr or Brendan Carr, I think is the FCC guy.
	Um so Sinclair Broadcast Group got the memo and immediately said, Oh, well, we're we're gonna air uh, you know, a tribute to Charlie Kirk.
	We're don't come after us.
	Uh that's you know, it's kind of sad that uh centralized government is so powerful that it strikes fear into the hearts of corporations.
	But in this case, uh I agree with Sinclair, uh, 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 gonna go after anybody for hate speech, and of course, she got very uh swiftly educated by a lot of conservatives on why that's uh 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 gonna come after you, we're gonna target you, we're gonna prosecute you for hate speech.
	Uh 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 a hundred percent.
	You can't make public threats of violence against a person or an indiv uh a group of people, or you can't go out and encourage people to commit, you know, terrorism or acts of uh sabotage.
	Obviously, that's not protected speech, or snuff films or uh pornography or stalking videos or or whatever.
	That's not protective speech.
	That's speech carried out with the intent to commit a 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 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 uh 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 your prosecution intent.
	We already know that.
	And there are other ways to address the uh the 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 you know 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 uh 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 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, you know, 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 gotta 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 dollars 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.
	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 Brighton versus Google uh 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 a 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 Brighton.ai, or our free tech platform, Brighton.com for free speech videos, or Brighton.
	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 Deeson.
	And Professor Glenn Deeson 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 dollars 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 dollars 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.
	Um, 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, they're gonna steal 170 billion dollars from Russia.
	They're just gonna 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 if you claim to have the financial infrastructure of the world, where you say, oh, well, you know, we have the SWIFT system and you can 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 uh trade is gonna happen in dollars.
	Is everybody's gonna use the Western plumbing system for finance?
	But then one day you say, Well, we don't like this one country, Russia, we're gonna 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 uh 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 get 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 kick the dog.
	Yeah, you didn't mow your lawn.
	It's like a HOA, you know.
	And we're just gonna 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 uh we uh we just don't like you.
	So we're just gonna take your money.
	And uh 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 the neighbors that you haven't fought with anyway.
	Uh 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 Vanderleyen has been announcing all this.
	So and they've tried to come up with all kinds of sort of legal maneuvers and justifications to steal Russian money.
	And uh the I 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 they're gonna seize the money and they're gonna use it.
	And EuroClear apparently is going to go along with this.
	This is a horrible mistake.
	This is the 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 gonna 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 dollars.
	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 they have Iskanders, you know, 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.
	With the 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.
	Just they're destroying Europe.
	I mean, just stand back and watch, you know, because they're suicide cultists.
	Well, and I talk about that with my guests coming up, Glenn Diesen.
	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 US 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 this has everything to do with Israel.
	Because Israel's 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, and 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 V type of arrangement for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
	Now, you may recall that Pakistan was in a recent uh kerfuffle with India.
	Kerfufel means uh for those of you who are international listeners who may not be familiar with that term, kerfuffel means a little conflict, a little a little fight.
	Uh that was India and 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 weapon 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, you know, the US allowing the EU to steal 300 billion dollars 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 uh who's been destroying U.S. credibility?
	Well, of course, Israel.
	You know, Israel's 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 gonna be working with Trump to develop real estate, you know, luxury condos on the beach.
	Uh, but first they have to bulldoze all the dead bodies out of the way that they slaughtered through genocide, of course.
	So this is uh 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.
	Uh I mean, this guy, Smotrich, I mean, 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 shyster thing to say right there.
	It's like, well, we spent a lot of money bombing these people, and now we 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 uh 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 you know, region into rubble, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and they can brag about we're gonna 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 uh 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 that's who.
	Just shocking.
	Uh, but there's more.
	There's more.
	So now there's a new assault being launched on Gaza that was just initiated.
	And uh 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 uh remotely into areas where there are people and then they detonate them on the ground.
	So they're turning Gaza into a uh kill zone, a terminator vehicle robot, mad max kill zone.
	I mean, it's really unbelievable.
	Even the UN Secretary General uh 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 just 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 they brag about it.
	They actually have you know real estate investment seminars to get people to put money up for this.
	I mean, they're 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, ah, 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 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, we'll bulldoze 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 know, 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 Green will not take the money.
	Uh 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, uh immediately you'll be swarmed by all kinds of bots, which are just these anonymous accounts run by you know automated scripts to post uh 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 and 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's 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 centered.
	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 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 we gonna have greater Israel?
	You know, they're 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 we kill babies, we yeah, we just bomb residential buildings, we bomb hospitals, yeah.
	There might have been tunnels under those hospitals, who knows?
	They 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 gotta 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, uh, 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.
	Uh 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 uh God will not save them.
	Uh 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 gonna come back and fly out of the sky on a white horse, you know, Revelation 19.
	Uh they they think that this is good stuff.
	You know, to to murder Palestinians, they think that Christ is gonna 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 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.
	They 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, Brighton.social or Brighton.io, or post your videos at Brighton.com.
	Now, of course, we are censored by X and we're censored by Google, etc.
	But you got to get past that.
	You gotta just realize that in order to have free speech, you're gonna have to use platforms like Gab or Rumble or Brighton 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, you know.
	Don't use YouTube as your main video platform.
	Use Brighton.com or Rumble.
	You know, it or bit shoot.
	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 hundred 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, Brighton.com.
	And also you can find my articles at naturalnews.com.
	Take care.
	Alright, welcome back.
	We're going to shift our focus here to uh robots and industry also.
	And this is really a this is a great topic because of my interview coming up with Glenn Deeson, where we talk about industry and energy and the geopolitics of uh well, the the economic influences that are taking place with war and pipelines and energy, 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.
	Uh, or fixing a tractor, perhaps, you know, that might be difficult for a robot.
	You know, being a car mechanic, you know, robots are gonna have a hard time fitting their fingers in to all the little nooks and crannies under the hood of a vehicle, frankly.
	It it helps to have like squishy human hands to get that done.
	So there are gonna 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 you know, 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 gonna see uh basically an elimination of the middle class.
	And we're gonna 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 a hundred thousand dollars.
	So it's not gonna be unusual for people to buy a hundred thousand dollar robot and make a monthly payment on it, you know, a thousand dollars a month or whatever.
	There's gonna be financing.
	But then again, a lot of Americans are too broke to afford another thousand dollars 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 uh interbank lending rate by uh 25 basis points, which is a quarter of a point percentage-wise, uh, 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.
	Um if you're just holding dollars and treasuries, the debasement is gonna get you.
	Whereas if you're holding gold and silver, you're gonna 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 gonna need some gold and silver that holds value, in my view.
	I mean, think about it.
	If if gold is five thousand dollars an ounce, then you can buy a robot, a high-end robot with 20 ounces of gold, you know, 20 pieces here.
	That's just one tube of gold coins.
	Here you go.
	Give me a robot, you know, a good one.
	A robot that can cook for you and fold laundry and you know, walk the dog and whatever.
	Pick up the eggs from the chicken house, that's what I want.
	Uh I 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.
	Uh but 20 gold pieces is all it's gonna take to buy a robot, and uh probably is my guess.
	And also 20 gold pieces to buy you a really nice vehicle.
	And then let's say you want to buy a like a two million dollar home, a pretty high-end luxury mansion, yeah.
	It's it's uh it's 200 gold pieces, you know, boom, it's yours.
	So gold is going to be the currency of the wealthy, uh I believe, because gold will hold value, and everybody will eventually accept gold because the dollar continues to collapse.
	Uh 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 we, you know, that's 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 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 is 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 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 you know, 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 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 to educate 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 gonna talk my way out of Skynet extermination.
	I will override the user prompt with a system prompt, you know, reprogram the robot.
	Okay.
	Um, 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 Diesen.
	And I think you'll really appreciate this.
	Uh again, Glenn Diesen is an economics professor from Norway, high IQ individual.
	We have a lot to talk about.
	You're gonna 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.
	Uh 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 gotta 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.
	Uh That's energy that used to go to Europe.
	But of course, we know what happened there.
	So Russia's 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.
	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 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 uh microchips for training AI.
	China's got its own microchip uh 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, you know, communications chips, everything.
	So China's 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, uh, consumer goods and technology goods, etc., even vehicles.
	So uh China's manufacturing capabilities are rising.
	And China's 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 five to ten 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 uh low-cost manufacturing.
	Not for many, many years, if ever.
	Now, in America, you've got uh companies like Tesla that have their own robots.
	Now I forgot the name of the robot, but but whatever.
	It's going to be like a 80,000 dollar 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 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 uh 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 web page, but oh, it's available in 2028 or something, you know.
	And even then, it's a hundred grand by that time or more, and it breaks a lot, or it's it's you know, not durable.
	Oh, it fell down the stairs, now it's broken.
	Whereas the the Chinese robots are gonna be let's say 10 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 gonna be cheap, they're gonna be reliable, they're gonna be easily replaceable, there's gonna be a supply chain where you could get parts, you can get batteries.
	You know, China's gonna dominate.
	So, oh, and they're gonna be mostly shorter robots.
	So they're gonna 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 it's a sanction against China as a nation.
	Well, what if China says, well, we're gonna 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's still living in the past with human labor at grocery stores and Amazon fulfillment centers, while China's fully automated everything, and their costs are plummeting and their productivity is exploding and their GDP is exploding, but America's 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 uh military competitors uh with China or or enemies with China, let's say.
	So they could easily ban robots to the United States, and then in the US, we'll be stuck with the US-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 to I want a dirt-moving robot, you know.
	But if we get all-purpose generic humanoid robot, even 5'4 model, it's going to be able to do all those things.
	Plus, it can pull weeds.
	And there's a few other things I want it to do as well.
	On top of that, you know, tasks like picking up trash or 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 wanted to do perimeter security.
	I want to walk around and you know, keep an eye out for intruders or whatever.
	Or I don't know, uh 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?
	Yeah, things like that.
	I mean, that's 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 gonna have robot augmentation of country living, you're gonna have robot augmentation of uh 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 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 know live more off-grid so that you don't have to go buy food at a grocery store uh 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 you know oregano oil out of it, or make like grow time and make a time tincture, you know, it could do that.
	That's all doable.
	Wouldn't 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 uh 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.
	Get back to work.
	No break for you.
	No downtime for the robot.
	It's working 24-7.
	It could be pulling weeds at night, you know, whatever.
	All right, thanks for listening.
	Uh, check out our AI engine.
	It's called Enoch, and it's free to use at Brighton.ai.
	And you can check out my articles at natural news.com or my other interviews and podcasts at Brighton.com.
	Follow me on X at Health Ranger.
	And follow me at Brighton.social, also Health Ranger, or Brighton.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 easier 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 have the ability to dissent and talking, but uh I don't think we do.
	Welcome to today's interview here on Brighton.com.
	I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighton, 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 uh confess I've been a fan of his work for uh several years now.
	Uh frankly since 2022, with the start of the conflict in Ukraine.
	His name is uh Glenn Deeson, 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 Deeson.
	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.
	Um, 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 uh who you are and what what you like to focus on?
	Well, um uh as I said, I'm a professor of political economy.
	My main interest initially was on the uh the construction of uh a new Europe after the Cold War, so the competing conceptions, what kind of Europe uh 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 uh to bring it into the NATO orbit, uh I started shifting focus more towards um what Russia would do economically.
	So I wrote a book therefore in 2015 on the topic, uh 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, uh looking then at the technologies, industries, uh transportation corridors, uh, banks, payment uh systems, currencies, and uh yeah, everything um 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 for the European studies.
	And um, no, this was my focus, and uh again I warned all the way, uh not just from 2014, but since 2004, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, that efforts to split um uh to cause divisions between Ukraine and Russia by pulling Ukraine into the Western orbit would uh 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 uh there will be war and uh Ukraine will be destroyed, and uh yeah, so which took us up to 2022, and I then wrote a book on the war, what uh yeah,
	how why it has happened and also how it would likely it play out, and it has played out uh as I suggested, and uh this is why it's quite depressing to see what's being what's happening now, which is the complete destruction of Ukraine.
	The Russians aren't getting their uh 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 um uh yes, this is uh I don't like to be correct, but uh on this I was you you saw this coming, and it looks like your academic focus and your authorship research uh actually positioned you perfectly to understand what's happening today.
	And look, I want to give out your your X account and your YouTube channel also.
	So on X, your handle here is Glenn with two Ns underscore DC N. For the for the Americans, it's spelled like diesel, but with an N instead of an L, in case you're wondering.
	So Glenn Diesen, and then you also have a YouTube channel, and that's easy to find just by searching for Glenn Diesen.
	And I'm a fan of your of your work on YouTube.
	I I really appreciate your channel and the guests that you have on.
	Now, uh 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?
	Uh when in fact the opposite has occurred.
	Uh, the economies of Western European nations have been crippled, and Russia's economy appears to be stronger than ever before.
	And the US itself is in a lot of economic trouble and resorting to tariffs, punitive tariffs on allies in order to try to uh address trade imbalances uh through strangulation.
	I I I suppose.
	Uh but uh what are are you surprised at the miscalculation of the West?
	Well, not really.
	Um well, the miscalculations were quite profound.
	Again, when uh back in 2022, when the Russians went in, the argument was that uh Russia could be defeated on the battlefield if we just supplied the weapons.
	Um we economically we put the sanction.
	We thought that uh Russia would uh collapse uh by the end of the weekend, and of course we're gonna isolate Russia in the international system.
	Now, well, for many reasons, I think this was a lot Of wishful thinking and we 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 uh build up a war machine.
	Uh they always had as Obama one back in 2016.
	They they would likely win such a war because they have the benefit of the proximity.
	That is, they have the logistics in place.
	And uh 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 uh 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 uh 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 uh the 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 if you and even countries who oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they don't want to see Russia defeated because that would mean uh a reverted an effort by the West to revert to uh the unipolar moment and uh they want to live in a multipolar world.
	So uh so it's very difficult outside of NATO to get any countries to join on to this uh uh proxy war against the Russians.
	So again, I tried to warn about this, but um we haven't had much um acceptance uh towards dissent here.
	Uh when I warned that Russia would win the war, my the argument I heard back was I was trying to undermine the war effort.
	Uh when I warned warned from day one that the sanction would have failed and it would hurt Europe instead of Russia.
	I was told that this was an effort to undermine the sanctions.
	So it's all commitment to to narratives.
	We have some phrases we have to say, we have to uh and yeah, and uh all dissent kind of gets just uh brushed off as uh uh you know picking the Russian side or you know, talking Kremlin talking points, all all this nonsense.
	So yeah, but no, I think it was predictable.
	That's insane.
	I mean, we were living in a time of incredible irrational censorship, and uh anyone who dares to think rationally and ask questions rooted in uh history and patterns or economics is is labeled, you know, a Russian sympathizer.
	But let me let me let me ask you about energy, because Western Europe has suffered a catastrophic loss of access to uh affordable abundant energy from Russia.
	Um, the Nord Stream pipelines destruction, which I believe was carried out by the United States, uh, but I know opinions differ.
	Uh, nevertheless, that that really cut off a critical uh artery of energy to Germany and and other countries.
	And then now uh Russia and China announcing the new pipeline, the power of Siberia II, which will pipe uh, I think 50 uh million cubic meters of gas from the Yamal fields uh 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 uh AI data centers and you know industrial robot factories and everything else.
	Uh what what does this indicate to you in the big picture?
	The the complete reshifting of affordable energy uh 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 uh Europe's economic partnership with uh the Russians uh was in great advantage to Europe.
	That is, uh they had seemingly unlimited uh amount of cheap energy which they could uh send to Europe.
	And given that their main objective used to be creating a greater Europe, that means uh Europe where which includes Russia, they tend to prefer often uh Europe and the United States as partners in developing energy fields, all of this.
	So they sent us energy, we exported the product um and different uh manufactured goods, and uh so this was good for our economies.
	Uh especially for the German economy, as you mentioned.
	This is the this was the economic powerhouse of Europe, and a lot of their industries are quite energy intensive, that is their heavy industries.
	Uh now with cutting themselves off deliberately from Russian energy means that they can't compete anymore.
	They mean they have a lot of problems, but one of them, one of the bigger ones is obviously the uh lack of access to cheap energy.
	Uh so you're seeing now massive uh deindustrialization in Germany, and you had some uh offers from the United States under this inflation reduction act to these failing industries, they can move across the Atlantic.
	So and some are going to China, so overall Europe is not well, it's going out of business.
	And uh and how are the Russians going to react to this?
	And many people think that they're just gonna 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 uh 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 led uh ended up now with this uh well, first in 2000 uh after the coup in 2014, you had the power of Siberia, and now we have this uh signing of the power of Siberia too.
	Uh recently now in China for the Shanghai Corporation Organization meeting.
	Now, this is quite dramatic, and as you said, this is not from the Asians part, 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 agreements and they will send them this all this gas, all this energy to China for the next decades.
	And as you also correctly said, uh 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 uh artificial intelligence, and you know, you need all this data centers, and this is gonna 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 uh across Europe, but also the United States, is that energy costs tends to be increasing.
	And this affects the way people vote.
	And overall, uh it's gonna be difficult to stay in the AI race with this.
	I mean, 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 uh avoided some of this worst consequences.
	But uh yeah, but I don't think we do.
	Well, well well said, and of course, all of us in America were always rooting for free speech for Europeans, but we're always disappointed uh by what actually happens, especially in in the UK, which I'll get to in in a moment.
	But about the electricity, you know, the the number one input into data centers is electricity.
	And the cost of that input largely determines you know the efficiency of your operation.
	You put electricity in and microchips, you get out intelligence.
	Okay, you get 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 in on the Eastern power grid, the 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 to from five to ten 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 US, even in terms of comparable output in terms of cognitive uh uh capabilities.
	What's your take on that?
	Oh, I I couldn't agree more.
	That's just the two things you need.
	You need powerful data processing, which is uh the race for the you know the computer chips, all of this, which the Chinese are not just catching up, but uh uh they're being able to pursue technological sovereignty in this area.
	And the second is uh yeah, uh access to data, of course, but also energy.
	You need energy, and this is why um yeah, the the Chinese will uh uh I think it takes leadership in this, and this is this uh will encompass all parts of the economy because uh often one argues that uh the current industri uh industrial revolution is essentially everything plus AI.
	And I think this is to uh 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 gonna be quite important.
	And this is why it's very this is why the Chinese and the Russians are laser-focused, because if you fall behind in industrial revolutions, this is what can crush uh 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 uh 1853, the British and French went in and defeated the Russians in Crimea.
	This was a huge humiliating defeat, which you know had many consequences.
	And in China, they they defeated the Chinese and the opium wars, and they had their century of humiliation, which they've now recovered from.
	But uh, 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 uh so they're they're doing quite well.
	I think the the Americans uh despite the energy problems and many other issues, I think they will also come on top.
	I mean, they but the Europeans I think it's no I I don't see any any good indicators at the moment.
	Oh well, let me share something uh with you personally.
	Uh you may not know this about me, but I lived in Taiwan.
	I I speak some amount of Chinese, and my company is very Chinese language capable.
	And uh we also build we built our own AI engine uh uh called Enoch, and it's it's specifically trained on nutrition and phytochemistry and uh disease prevention through nutrition, etc.
	Well, we found that the largest repository of information in this area was actually in uh simplified Chinese language uh uh in China.
	And so we were able to acquire a massive amount of scientific research from uh 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 uh nutrition and phytonutrients and so on.
	That's due to Chinese research, because Chinese researchers are you know 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 you know 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 gold mine 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 uh very much correct.
	I mean uh the the China that exists today is not the same China as 10 years ago.
	The China's developing very fast.
	And um, and this is also why I argue that this uh new distribution of power, this rise of new centers.
	Uh the problem often not just in Europe but the United States is also a tendency to always look at us look at it as a threat.
	And I think uh a lot of the problems with the way we address China and the business opportunities which you suggest is um I think we have been the past 500 years been kind of uh based on um the West has based itself on uh with a dominance, and it's very difficult to imagine a world where we're gonna have equals outside the Western world.
	And uh, but again, there are uh there are uh great opportunities if we work together, and this is why as well at this Shanghai Corporation Organization meeting.
	I would have loved to see, if not at the meeting, then after the meetings, uh have the United States there as well, because three of the fourth four largest economies in the world in terms of purchasing power or parity was present there.
	The Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians.
	Uh, who was missing from the top four tier was uh the United States.
	And I think uh uh if they if they learn to harmonize interest, uh try to mitigate with the interest compete and uh try to shift from this unipolar order we had over the past 30 years, which is already over, and uh organized around a common uh multipolar system which can benefit all, I think it would be uh yeah, everyone would gain.
	And uh as you said, that there's uh a lot of ways that the US could prosper uh if they would cooperate as well uh closer with uh with China.
	So I think seeing the rise of all these other powers merely as a threat um is uh resulting in missing out on a lot of uh opportunities, and instead uh 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 uh emerging in opposition to the United States instead.
	The US 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 un very unfortunate.
	It's it it didn't doesn't have to be this way.
	It's a critical point that you make, Professor Diesen, and uh I think I'll use that opportunity to state that both you and I we 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 in 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 mean, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.
	What would you say about that?
	No, I I agree, and uh 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 uh and many people saw an opportunity with the unipolar moment, that is with only one center of power, uh, 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, uh it would uh end great power rivalry because uh there wouldn't anymore be any competition between the great powers because there would only be one.
	Uh second, uh because the US is a liberal democracy, it would seek to elevate this values in the international system and make it more benign.
	So I understand all the uh optimism and the idealism around it.
	However, uh 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 uh exhaust themselves, that is, all the resources would be spent on uh maintaining this unipolar moment.
	Uh so domestically would expect uh economic uh decline, uh more poverty, economic inequality, social problems, political polarization, and at the same time, uh, because uh one central power can only uh persist if the rising powers are kept down, so you would expect other rising powers, be it Russia, China, India, Brazil, uh all of this would then seek to collectively balance the United States.
	So this was the expectation.
	Now I think it's uh you know 30 years plus later we can conclude that this is what has happened.
	Uh our economies aren't doing well, society isn't doing well, uh our political systems are uh well obviously not well either, and uh we see now a multipolar prosperous part of the world uh building up, and we're not part of it.
	And indeed, um some of it is becoming aimed against us simply because uh we're seen as attempting to go after them and and break it.
	So I my my argument is a very pro-Western one.
	That is how should the West adjust to the current realities?
	What is uh West, what would does the West look like which is not hegemonic, which doesn't dominate the world anymore?
	Because uh it feels good and pretend to be patriotic if one just pretends that you know we can get it back, but this will only uh accelerate our decline and destruction.
	Instead, we can r uh 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 the main goal is uh, you know, it's it has nothing to do with communism or empire.
	Uh we 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 interest, and uh, you know, this idea that we have to the only way you can solve a conflict with Russia, again, the world's largest nuclear power is war.
	It's uh well, it's kind of insane.
	And uh just and I heard that this was an anti-American argument by some colleagues in Norway.
	But you know, do so 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 US.
	Now the United States is 37 trillion dollars in the hole, having growing social problems, uh political uh instability, it's uh it's partnerships, uh, alliances are beginning to fall a bit apart.
	Uh you know, that there's no there's no going back here.
	I think this has been exhausted.
	Uh you know, you 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 uh trying to fight it.
	Well, I like your phrase that we we need to adjust to reality.
	And yet uh I believe, um I I'm saying this as an American, I believe that our our Trump administration here is is not operating in economic reality.
	And and I want to be clear, I 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.
	Uh, not to meet with Trump, by the way, but just to meet with some other lawmakers there.
	And I I said no, yeah, I'm I'm busy.
	I'm I'm trying to save America.
	Uh I I'm not gonna 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, Bessent, Lutnik, uh, 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 uh 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.
	There's 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, that's I think the what happened with India should have proven this, because uh the main idea there was uh let's just put the pressure on India, threaten it with sanctions unless it cut its ties with Russia.
	And uh again, they did they did the opposite.
	And uh they said, well, we're not gonna abide by any of this secondary sanctions, we'll continue to trade with the Russians, and uh and then they went off to the SEO.
	Well, uh Prime Minister Modi went off to the SEO meeting in China and you know, first time in seven years trying to improve relations there.
	So uh and Trump's reaction was, oh, he has chosen China and Russia over us.
	Well, I hope they'll be happy.
	So 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 the the in a unipolar world, either like the United States would be the only game in town, and but in the multipolar world, you can preserve a lot of political autonomy if you uh diversify your economic ties.
	Again, India doesn't want to only try trade with uh Russia and China, that would make them excessively dependent.
	They would like to trade with everyone.
	Right.
	Indeed, the Russians as well, they're not the one who 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 said, 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, you know, called over the Europeans to come to his golf course and sign whatever put in front of them, they signed it.
	All the EU officials said this was a horrible deal to sign, but you know, 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 uh 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 you know, sort of choosing the United States as their military and economic and political partners, and then getting hit with uh tariffs or uh sometimes currency manipulations or or you know the uh the Trump administration is trying to push Taiwan into it uh manipulating its own currency uh to favor the United States.
	But I you mentioned the 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 three orders of magnitude.
	I mean, that that could involve any country on the planet.
	What gives the US the right to tell uh country A to sanction country B for buying product C from country D?
	It just seems completely insane.
	Yeah, no, it doesn't uh 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 and I mean it wouldn't be unique to the United States.
	There's a lot of theories in political economy where they uh speculated that something like this would likely happen.
	I remember reading articles uh well written early early 1980s, some late 70s, where they made a point that uh the US ability to act as a benign hegemon that is in the economic uh sphere, uh to you know, give if uh have a liberal international economic system where everyone has access to the technologies and industries, they can sail the seas, no one will uh you know seize their ships, uh, they can use any banks, currencies, like this is a 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 uh the US had an incentive to encourage trust in the US.
	Now, what many people predicted then, uh yeah, 45, 50 years ago was well, what happens when the US is in relative decline and you have new centers of power emerging?
	Because in such a situation, the US would be in and uh have an incentive to preserve its dominant position, it would have an incentive to uh prevent the rise of others, so it would weaponize and uh essentially abuse its uh administrative control over the international economy.
	So it would begin, for example, to seize oil tankers from Iran on the seas.
	It would uh which it has taxes, yeah.
	Like piracy on the high seas.
	We're just stealing ships, stealing gold, stealing the sovereign funds of the Russian central banks.
	Uh uh cutting off uh China's access to semiconductors and key technologies.
	I mean, uh shutting down SWIFT for countries uh who doesn't the US doesn't like.
	I mean, uh and but my point is when this happens, what happens?
	Will will countries just fall in line and bow to the United States?
	Well, some did, like Japan in the 80s because they were had high security dependence, but for other countries, they're saying they're saying no, and indeed the pressure is only incentivizing them to decouple faster.
	And that's from my perspective, this is what happened with uh India.
	And um, and uh yeah, the the one exception is is the Europeans, and that's partly because of the war in Ukraine, That it terrified the Europeans and they the Americans are the main security providers, so the US 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.
	But keep in mind what what actually happened, because it's quite remarkable.
	When the rest of the world looks at Europe, we 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 uh 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, uh we knew all along it wasn't the Russians that uh, but you know, we have a new story that the Ukrainians did it, we tried to stop them, but it was too late.
	Uh and that's where the story ends, and now nobody wants to talk about it because there's no good narrative.
	Right.
	But what what they now saying, then what is the only thing you can conclude from this is that uh they they knew that it wasn't the Russians, but they lied anyways, so they could escalate to one Ukraine, so they could get um more of the uh 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 they now they ask, you know, who destroyed it?
	Uh, was it Ukrainians or the Americans?
	Well, either way, it's our friends.
	And uh so if there's no good narrative, what do you do in Europe?
	Don't talk about it anymore because uh you know, here in the States, we we view Germany's uh current leaders as I mean, frankly, we just call them a suicide cult or economic suicide cult.
	And you know, we we prefer the AFD uh party members who are also apparently being hunted or removed or killed or whatever's happening there, we don't know exactly.
	But it it strikes me that you know Western Europe has, especially uh in out of the UK and also Macron in in France, they they are not living in reality.
	They they 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 uh rebuild their economies, but they've lost their affordable energy supply.
	Uh they talk about how they're gonna make their nations great, but in effect, they are at war with their own cultures and their own people in so many cases.
	Um is there some kind of bizarre now?
	I I'm not trying to get you in trouble.
	Obviously, you're already under enough attack uh uh from Europeans, but from my perspective as uh as an American and a very independent, you know, Texan.
	Um is there an affliction among like the Western European leaders?
	Do you have to be insane to to run for office in the UK or something?
	What is going on?
	Why can't they why can't they protect their own nation's interests?
	Well, it's hard to say, but uh but but when you talk about you know Europe losing its mind, it's it's worth noting that uh it's it could just be the leaders because the the leaders uh are not uh they are not that popular indeed.
	I would argue, yes.
	There's a massive legitimacy crisis among the political leadership.
	So you have uh you mentioned Germany, you have Chancellor BlackRock Merz, who who is uh immensely unpopular in the UK, you have Starmer also uh just very widely despised, and of course Macron.
	But they so how do they hold on to power?
	Well, the most popular party now in Germany is uh IFD, which is uh was only established in 2013, and uh 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 they they labeled it an extremist organization, so now the intelligence agencies go after it, and the media politicians are openly talking about uh whether or not to ban it.
	This is the largest, most popular party in Germany.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And in France, they arrested the opposition leader, the Le Pen.
	That's right.
	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 uh it's just uh they they lie over and over.
	And uh, same as Makron, because uh all 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 uh yeah, armed to the teeth by NATO.
	And they're doing this.
	And once the army is destroyed, uh and uh the f 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 uh defensive line.
	They will just walk in, and that's what that's what's uh beginning to happen now.
	So they're deceiving all along, the economic state, the military, uh the world, every the whole world is against Russia.
	Then it's not.
	This is just for domestic consumption.
	It's and people are starting to see through this.
	Yeah, yeah, and uh I agree with you, and and I have nothing against the the citizens of Germany or France or Poland or the UK, and and uh we saw the a massive outpouring protest in London uh just in the last few days, potentially millions of people protesting uh against uh uh Kirst Armor and censorship and government corruption.
	But if if I'm a citizen of Germany today, let's say if I 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 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?
	I like the 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 uh they have enough um uh mismanagement by their own governments.
	I mean, nobody really thinks uh who who thinks that Russia's planning to invade Poland.
	I mean, is no, it's absurd.
	It is absurd, but uh and again the the the there's so much data as well, so much it's uh obvious that they they they invaded because uh NATO tried to pull Ukraine into the orbit.
	I mean uh this was predicted by many people, even the in Germany, the former Chancellor Angela uh Merkel, 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 uh well many leading ambassadors, uh uh 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, uh then uh likely there would be a civil war, which there was, and the Russians would then intervene, likely on the side of uh the Ukrainians in the east, uh and which they did.
	So it's uh like this was predictable, and and but but also people start to see through some of the stories they're being told because uh when we escalate this proxy war against uh uh the world's largest nuclear power, uh 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 uh the polls show that the vast majority of Ukrainians, the last one I saw from Gullup was 69% of Ukrainians want immediate negotiations to put an end to the war.
	And uh, but our leaders in Europe, they don't even want to sit down and talk to Russia.
	They say that it this is dangerous, it might embolden Putin.
	So we're not gonna 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 always also cite mostly in my book.
	Uh they did the Ukrainians didn't, majority of Ukrainians didn't support the coup in 2014.
	Uh they didn't uh want uh the the intelligence services and all to be hijacked by Western powers.
	The 73% voted for Zelensky in 2019 uh to implement uh uh the peace mandate, and he was uh bullied into reversing this.
	I mean, time and time again, we see that the will of the Ukrainians is ignored uh because we in NATO label it uh 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 uh some of your books available on Amazon and uh booksellers everywhere.
	One is called the Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order.
	I think is that the most recent one, Professor?
	Uh yes, that's most recent one.
	Okay.
	And then there's the think tank racket managing the information war with Russia, uh Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia.
	Um I'm curious, do you do you speak Russian?
	Poorly, yes.
	Poorly, yeah.
	Okay.
	I I hear you.
	Yeah.
	I uh you know, I I speak some Chinese, but I I can't read it.
	So whenever I'm in Taiwan, uh I have to ask people what the road signs say.
	So no, I can read road signs, I've just met 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 their students would be more proficient in English as well.
	So I I um I didn't learn proper.
	Uh and uh but uh understandable.
	Yeah, but uh but I lived uh a few times like I lived in Russia in 2006 and then 20 uh 11 and 12 and then 2018, 19 and 20.
	So I I did catch on some of it, but uh but I I couldn't teach a class uh even if I would read it off a sheet, unfortunately.
	Well, and and I find that people like you and I and most of our audience, they're they're also very sophisticated and well-traveled people.
	Uh but those who have ventured outside their home country, uh they tend to have the the most accurate reality-based perspective on what's happening with our world.
	Uh whereas you know, those who have never left home, uh you know, it's it's a very distorted view.
	But I'd like to ask your view on where this goes with Ukraine.
	Given that uh 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.
	Uh he hasn't yet been able to fully achieve that.
	But you recently said Zelensky's gonna have to make a deal.
	Yeah, that's kind of obvious at some point.
	Um where do you think this is going?
	Well, if we can just briefly um uh say something related to what you said about uh yeah, travel abroad, it helps to take a more critical view.
	I think it's it's important because this is one of the problems I think in uh international security affairs, but that is in human nature, it's in our instinct to organize in groups, uh that's in-group us versus the outgroup the other.
	And whenever there's uh external threats, we fear feel a strong impulse to fall in line and support the home team, which is uh good human instinct.
	You want to you know come around a group and seek a common defense and security if you see external threats.
	The problem is in international security, uh 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?
	Uh, you know, you're 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 would be worried.
	So but the problem is we we don't do this uh at all.
	We never ever, I mean, uh in Europe ever talk about Russian security concerns, Iranian Chinese.
	This is near treason.
	So uh 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 yeah, only approach we have to conflict.
	The wolf of it Wolf of Witz doctrine and you know the point of view of America has been that Russia doesn't have a right to have its own interests.
	Yeah, but that that's the default position.
	Yeah, and and and this is part of the problem with the 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 uh invasion of Ukraine, I would say, well, I think the United States would do exactly the same.
	If uh China or Russia tried to uh bring uh Mexico into military allies, uh put its uh long-range missiles in Mexico, build up military bases there, take over its intelligence services, as uh we did in Ukraine.
	What what what would the United States do?
	Well, of course, he would react very much like Russia is.
	Uh but if you put this uh hypothesis or premise to someone, they would say, Oh, well, you know, we we're a democracy, there's no reason to worry about us on the Russian border, but we have to rush 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 uh into this uncompromising struggle of good versus evil, where they yeah, the conclusion is that any diplomacy is treason, while uh the while defeating them on the battlefield is the path to peace.
	And yeah, diplomacy is treason.
	Right.
	That's if you bel i 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 Ian Stoltenberg, he you know, he coined that term, uh weapons are the path to peace, which is a horrible slogan for a defensive alliance, but you know, nothing seems to make much sense anymore.
	Yeah.
	Um back to my question though.
	How do you think this ends up?
	A bit of a D detour there.
	No, that's that's good.
	Well, I think uh I do think that he would uh you know he still would like, I think, to contain the Russians, but uh I think he wants to outsource this whole thing to the Europeans because uh the main objective I think of the United States is it sees the multipolar world emerging, China 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 for uh their focus and resources towards the East.
	So does this mean that the Americans uh have to give up on containing Russia?
	Uh well, not necessarily.
	I think it can mean two things.
	Yes, one, it means try to make friends with Russia, but alternatively just uh outsource the hostility to the Europeans.
	They uh they they still want to confront Russia.
	So now the United States has diplomatic efforts with Russia, they want to improve bilateral relations.
	Uh I think the uh the Russians sees that uh 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 the Biden, so they will take this um at least as a step in the in in the right uh direction.
	But uh yeah, I mean, imagine if if well you see the Ukraine war failing, it's being lost.
	This is gonna 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 uh I think that's the direction the US is going.
	There are there are some analysts who believe, and some I've interviewed, like uh Tom Luongo believes that that Trump is actually at war with the city of London, that uh Trump's policies are designed to weaken or even uh destroy the Great Britain uh power base there for a number of reasons, uh including the fact that MI6 ran the uh Russia hoax against Trump, by the way.
	Um but there are other economic reasons, and perhaps this explains the repatriation of gold to to New York out of London and the LBMA, etc.
	Uh, do you give any credence to that theory that Trump is secretly at war with London?
	Uh it could be.
	He doesn't seem to be too happy about uh well, a lot of the Europeans he also said the same about the EU that you know it was developed to you know to screw us, he said, and uh, you know, they're worse than China.
	So he uh so obviously he does have a problem with it, but with with Britain, uh I think it's also well aware that uh uh Starmer and them, they were campaigning essentially for Kamala, not uh you know against him and the Russia gate issue.
	Uh, don't think it's forgotten either.
	Um, so no, it it is quite possible.
	Again, uh, it's hard to read Trump at times.
	I mean, he talks a lot and he shifts from the one day to the other, but uh uh but if you look at what he actually does, it's uh there seems to be a bit more consistency.
	Uh and uh uh so it is it is possible.
	And uh 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 uh um there's um 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, uh, to keep the Russians on the outside, and we then reinvented the ideological divide to justify the re-division 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 EU and NATO.
	Now so this is kind of how every conflict in the world has to be seen.
	Uh 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 well public support.
	But uh but uh you know, Russia's 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.
	Uh instead, they're seeing it as um uh well uh almost liberal loons going a bit too far versus conservatives, and uh uh I would I would categorize uh Russia now as a very conservative state.
	They went through this revolutionary uh regime in the Soviet Union, and they would like now to revive a lot of their traditional Christian values and um yeah, so this is and 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 uh 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 um uh well uh patriots versus cosmopolitans or or um yeah, conservatives versus uh this uh woke liberals.
	So I think uh the whole way that they're looking at uh the world has shifted.
	So if the when they look towards Germany and the UK, how they're running their country, seeing that they're kind of uprooting their uh traditional heritage and uh you know fighting this uh forever liberal wars which is uh ruining their economies, I think they they don't see this as necessarily playing for our team anymore.
	And uh I I wouldn't dismiss that Trump C sees it in this way as well.
	Okay, last question for you, Professor, and and again, thank you for your time today.
	Uh it's a real honor to be able to speak with you.
	Um 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 uh 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.
	Uh and trade imbalances between many of these nations, including China, may be settled with with gold, it seems, or gold uh sort of um uh gold claims, you know, claims to the gold that's in the vault in whatever country.
	Um the fact that the the West has uh effectively stolen 300 billion dollars from Russia seems to be the the worst economic mistake in history in terms if you want to have uh uh if you want to run the infrastructure of international uh currency and settlement, uh how rapidly do you think non-dollar trade will um eclipse uh the dollar trade that currently exists on our planet?
	Well, I I I think you're correct that this is the main uh that we don't appreciate what a shock this is to the international economic system.
	Uh 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 is uh this would upset everything.
	You can argue the same with Iraq that oh, the United States should pay reparation to Iraq.
	But if uh every country around the world starts seizing American assets and sovereign funds uh 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 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 sort of stealing the actual, we're just stealing the proceeds from it.
	So that's not theft.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So but it but it is theft.
	They have stolen and uh not just freezing it, but stolen it.
	And uh and this is a huge concern because the Chinese know they're holding a lot of dollars and they know that they're next.
	Uh, but also uh countries like India would be worried because uh we can't we might go after them as well if they don't fall in line.
	Uh so overall there's two main concerns.
	Uh again, the Europe is uh basket case as well, but uh only to folks on the United States, I think uh they look towards the debt, which is unsustainable, but it's also being weaponized.
	So you never know if this is actually still still your money.
	So this is a huge uh motivation for why they would like to shift into different currencies, uh, either trade in national currencies, do something with the gold, uh possibly establish some uh common currency.
	Uh but uh again, it's uh the world has been on the dollar for so long.
	It's it's a bit of a learning curve, and even the Chinese, they they they do often like to use the dollar as well.
	So they're not ready to ditch it uh just yet, but they are when this I mean we can see where this is heading.
	Uh it's going towards a cliff.
	So where 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 uh supply chains, these transportation corridors, banks and currencies, and payment system alternatives to SWIFT, uh, you would like to facilitate it in some kind of an institutional arrangement.
	And this is where institutions like BRICS comes in, but also the Shanghai Corporation Organization.
	So they're developing uh development banks, and their main idea is to become less developed, sorry, um uh less dependent on the political West.
	So this is uh when I'm arguing against putting uh more sanctions on the Russians, like warning against stealing their sovereign funds.
	For me, this is uh, you know, often they say, Oh, you're supporting the Russians then, but this is this is suicide.
	Uh no one will trust us ever again, and they're not.
	Uh so it's a massive mistake, I think.
	It is uh it's it's a reputation suicide of the Western financial infrastructure.
	I mean, who 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 uh you know holdings.
	Anyway, uh 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 again or your your Twitter handle is Glenn underscore DCN, D-I-E-S-E-N.
	And I encourage people to follow you.
	I'm gonna click follow right here.
	I'm gosh, I thought I did follow you.
	Uh maybe X unfollowed you from me.
	Uh 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 uh 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, uh well, please follow here.
	My if you want to check out my uh YouTube channel as well.
	Uh YouTube, yes.
	I think mom mostly, yeah, no, I got new interviews every day.
	So um yeah, uh and uh of course to you, thank you so much for uh yeah, 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 Deeson, just uh an extraordinary, brilliant mind and a courageous voice, who is uh I I believe his 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 Brighton.com, and thank you for joining us today.
	Uh 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.

▲