Ron Paul argues the American system is collapsing due to the 1971 gold standard abandonment, which enabled central bank manipulation, runaway inflation, and wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. He contends that neither major party seeks constitutional restoration, while universities propagate state dependency and AIPAC influences politics. Although he views figures like Trump as orchestrators rather than creators of chaos, Paul believes moral change through private education and Bitcoin offers a path to decouple from inflationary policies. Ultimately, he warns that an empire of lies fueled by nihilism threatens liberty, urging citizens to protect their gold and uphold natural law against government overreach. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
History Melting Away00:14:47
Russell Brand, controversial conspiracy theorist.
Trying to bring real journalism to the American people.
Hello there, you awakening wonders.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
It's a very special show because we are being joined by Ron Paul.
And in a time of crisis and confusion and fallen idols and spreading an endless war, there's a kind of new tower of Babel almost where people don't know what to believe in.
People will believe in anything every day, a new conspiracy theory every day.
a new criticism, a new attack.
Every day, further reasons for despair, confusion and annihilation.
We're living sort of in a time where it feels like history is melting away, its lessons not received.
So it's a great honour to be able to introduce Dr. Ron Paul.
Before we say hello, please have a look at this brief package we've assembled to introduce you to those of you that may not be familiar with him to some of his work and what he represents at this critical time.
If you're watching us anywhere other than Rumble, come and join us on Rumble.
And if you don't have Rumble Premium yet, Get Rumble Premium now.
Ron Paul is a former congressman, physician, and longtime advocate for limited government, individual liberty, and non interventionist foreign policy.
What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?
First elected to Congress in the 1970s, he became one of the most influential libertarian voices in American politics, building a loyal following through his opposition to endless wars, central banking, and government overreach.
His presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012 helped shape a generation of anti-establishment politics, particularly among younger voters skeptical of both parties.
Today, through his writing, interviews, and the Ron Paul Liberty Report, he continues to challenge mainstream narratives around war, economics, and personal freedom.
You know, when the founding fathers got sick and tired of the British tax, and they had a tax of about 25%, the American people are rather complacent to put up with this.
Thank you for joining us, Dr. Ron Paul.
So, hey, Doctor, at the moment we can't hear you.
I'm not sure if that challenge is taking place at your end.
Massey, can I hear you talk for a second?
And that will help us to understand.
Speaking.
Hey.
Nice one, Massey.
Thank you.
So, yeah, like so, our audio is working this end.
Doctor, if you've got someone there that can assist you with that audio, likely it might be muting on Zoom or the platform, whatever platform it is we're using to connect with you.
But if you can hear me, this is what the first.
Perhaps get some assistance on that microphone.
Yeah, we're not hearing that.
So I think someone needs to assist you with the platform and the audio there.
But I can firstly outline some of the areas that I want to discuss with you because it feels like a unique and particular moment of disarray and confusion.
This is the first thing I'm going to ask you about when eventually we're able to access your audio, sir.
It's this.
Trump was such an idiosyncratic and powerful candidate.
And in a way, he felt like the end of a particular type of politics, particularly when he campaigned for the presidency the first time.
Revealing, just, yeah, we got it.
I can hear him.
We're like revealing in casual declarations in the early debates against Hillary that I use the loopholes that all of your donors use.
If Trump doesn't work, if Trump is still.
It seems beholden to the kind of deep state, centralized, supranational forces that many people believe direct the trajectory of politics.
Then, what must follow?
Must we have real systemic change?
And can you guide us to what we will be campaigning for and highlighting so that our audience, who live in this kind of instantaneous, constant churn environment, can have the benefit of your insights when it comes to the necessity for systemic change, sir?
Well, I think the systemic changes are destined, they will happen.
And Trump is in the middle of it, but he didn't create it.
I think the destiny is that when you don't follow a set of rules that make a lot of sense and defend liberty, you're going to get this mishmash.
For instance, if you defy the principles of sound money and you allow the government in secret to print money out of thin air and start wars and not expose what they're doing to the people, you can do that for so long and you can run your debt up for so long.
But eventually, it has to end because the people will get disgusted.
They sort of got aware of this and a major event occurred in 1971 because we were doing way too much and the deficit was too big and we had to declare the bankruptcy.
That's when we went off the gold standard.
So we defaulted then.
But it continued anyway with overreach, spending too much, too many wars, too much welfarism, too much corruption.
And that was inevitable that it would lead to this crisis.
But Trump is in the middle of it.
He's just orchestrating, taking advantage of it, getting in charge of this conflict and the breakdown.
And it's up for grabs because right now we're getting violence in the streets and chaos.
Other people want to grab hold of something too because that's a stated principle of a Marxist.
Bring on chaos in the streets and then we're going to grab hold of power.
What do we see today?
Even announced communists and socialists.
Winning major elections in our country.
So they're there.
So the mess up came by the sacrifice of the liberties of the principles of sound money and the Constitution, and the emperor occurred.
So we're in the midst of the developing bankruptcy, and it's going to get a lot worse.
So that's why I think it's so vital that we talk about the principles that once made the nation a lot better off than it is today and why.
We should be talking about that and not the single consequences.
Yes, there are wars and we have to talk about it.
Yes, there are high prices.
We have to talk about it.
But we have to talk about how and why and why do the people support it.
One of the principles that you've just described is the problem that occurs when you decouple a nation's wealth from gold-backed currency.
Perhaps because this is an idea that you've been Disseminating and describing for some time.
It's something that I'm, as much as any lay person can be, familiar with.
If I'm familiar with it, and many more advanced minds than mine are familiar with it, what is the obstacle to this notion being advanced politically?
What power exists that prevents even that one principle being instituted, Doctor?
It's a result of a principle that we endorsed 100 years ago in the progressive era, and that was the debasement of the currency and the giving up of the currency and opening up the doors to those hungry for power to, in secret, be able to manipulate all the economy for special favors, like supporting the military industrial complex.
So the principle was that the founders were very clear only gold and silver were to be used as legal tender.
And It was announced in 71, which is a date that I talk about a lot when we rejected the gold standard because we left that and that opened up the doors.
I'm amazed that the corruption and the fraudulent and the counterfeiting of money has lasted this long.
But what it leads to, the longer it lasts, the more distortion there will be, the more there will be a division between the rich and the poor.
And right now, you know, you could read certain articles from certain papers.
And everything sounds pretty good.
And they quote statistics.
But if you go and find out what the people are doing, and some of the polling now does reflect the fact that the people can't pay their bills and they won't be able to live very long without a paycheck.
So we're in a crucial danger spot of deficits and this runaway inflation with our currency.
But neither political party has an appetite.
To abide by the principle you've just described.
So, how will that principle ever be politically realized?
The Trump's not doing it.
Gavin Newsom, if he's the next candidate, is not doing it.
So, where is it available as an option for America?
And this is just to take in one granular idea, albeit a very significant one.
Advocating for it meaningfully.
You've run as an independent, of course, several times and ultimately unsuccessfully.
And one has the sense that your system here in this country will never afford an independent candidate meaningful legislative power.
So, how will this be?
Are we not ultimately, Doctor, discussing the requirement for systemic change so that there is actual representative power?
Democracy because otherwise, no one is ever going to reverse what happened in 1971.
No one's offering it, no one's people are discussing it, but no one that's in a position to instantiate it.
So, what is the change that's required even for that one change to be even discussed?
So, I'm not quite as pessimistic as that because that's where I find some optimism that there are the changers, the bright people are changing their minds.
There was a beach.
Change in the attitude in this country in the regular media, say for the monetary issue.
And when I first went to Congress in 76, they said, What are you doing?
Who's why are you talking about this stuff?
It's on the news every day.
And then you have big arguments between the president and chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
Well, should interest rates go up here, a quarter point here or there?
Which means it's being discussed.
And that's the way we lost it.
We lost it through the people doing the discussion and the people who grabbed hold of the progressive educational system because I think it's government schools versus an independent thinking group.
So, I say there's a lot of people, a Mises Institute, I can name 10 little groups, and that's small in number, but it's very, very important that there's people doing this, and they're out there.
And I was very much encouraged when I did my campaign.
You say, yeah, but you didn't get anywhere.
You didn't win any states or anything.
But I saw thousands of kids, young people, college kids on liberal college campuses, when you talk to them about liberty and why it's important.
To have sound money and restrain the government, they understood this.
But I agree.
I'm a pessimist on the short run because I believe the debt and the malinvestment that has occurred with the destruction of the currency has to be liquidated.
And right now, you know, our debt now is the greatest it's ever been.
And, you know, they overlooked the debt during World War II, but it's bigger than that now.
So it's destined to change.
And there's a lot of people out there changing their minds about it and are complacent.
But it is tough.
There's no doubt about it because everybody's become dependent.
The system we have now today is disgusting because the executive branch of our government and the government itself for years has always passed out stuff.
How much money has been passed out, counterfeit money, to the universities?
And there's been a lot.
So if the universities don't have the right professors, Professors teaching there, uh, they threaten them.
The government says to them and Trump will say to them, well, if you don't do it our way and don't, you don't let these speakers come in and you don't teach this, that we're going to take your money away.
And so we've taught people to be addicted to this.
And yet we still do have private schools.
We still do have, uh, you know, homeschooling.
We still have you on the air because you want to talk about this.
And I think subtly there's a lot, it's a lot better off on the educational part because in my understanding of how the system works, it isn't a numbers game.
You don't have to wait and say, well, you have to have 51%.
No, authoritarians are pure democracy, get the majority out there and they can take in, do anything you want.
No, I think right now it's a small minority that has to change the attitude.
And that's the way the revolution occurred.
They didn't convince the, you know, the The people in the colonies to have a vote, and there was 30 to 21 percent.
There were leaders, and we call them the founding fathers.
And boy, if you read the details of the founding fathers, it's really they deserve a lot of admiration.
So, there, but we have them here, we have them now.
You know, the Austrian School of Economic Policy, and I can name six of them that I got to know real well, and they've been teaching for a long time, and they're out there.
Faith in Human Beings00:03:34
I am shocked.
That if I go on a trip and I'm, uh, uh, if I talk to, to the people, they said that, uh, they, they themselves have started their own program.
And I always had a habit of, no matter who called, it would be even before I ran for office, they would call, uh, from a university.
Oh, we have 15 members in our libertarian club.
I would go.
I didn't know the difference, but I talked to them.
It turns out those 15 work for me in the Congress.
They've started their own program.
So I see the momentum as, Very decent.
So I look on the positive side of it.
Of course, I don't have much fun looking at only the bad part.
But I remember talking and telling the young people how bad it was, what they were inheriting.
You don't own yourself.
They can draft you.
And the wars, you know, I got it.
And I'd talk 45 minutes on that.
And then I would give my 10-minute pitch of what Liberty could do and to correct these problems.
And what I was impressed with is someone would come up to me and say, Dr. Paul, I really like what you're saying.
You're such an optimist.
I said, an optimist.
I just talked for 45 minutes.
To tell you how bad things were.
So I think there's a message there.
It was for me that yes, you've got to tell the truth and then you've got to give them an answer.
And to me, the answer is in as pure as an understanding of liberty as you can get and honesty.
I think people should learn to know what a natural law is of a, you know, it's natural, I believe from the beginning of time, that you're not supposed to lie and cheat and steal and murder people.
And probably 99% of the people agree with that.
So, I think that they're on our side.
But right now, we're like, our country's like spoiled kids.
All they knew was getting money and never learned how to do things until they consumed the wealth.
The country now has consumed this wealth because right now we're seeing these stupid wars going on.
How much wealth has been consumed since World War II?
Needlessly, against the rules, against the natural laws.
So, I still have room.
Besides, I think if we play this game and do this, and explain it to them, it actually is a lot of fun for me because I can see how every every year or two, I might get one or two converts that to go out and do a lot better.
So I I uh, and besides, it's not much fun for me to say well, it's coming to an end and you better get your gun and shoot some people before they take over.
So I think people should have fun.
I come on programs like this because you know I I cheat, because I enjoy it.
It's when it comes for enjoyment and maybe I don't know how many listeners you have and I don't know how what, how many of your listeners Might be doing something you don't even know about.
So I think that's, you know, it's a positive attitude that I try to follow.
Dr. Paul, you're right to encourage us to pursue the principle of joy.
And please believe me when I say that I recognize that I'm in the presence of an elder with great accumulated wisdom and experience.
I'd like to publicly thank Christina Tobin for organizing and facilitating this interview.
Thank you.
Because I'm not pessimistic nor cynical.
I have great faith in human beings.
I have great faith in God.
Warning of What Is Coming00:10:49
I have great faith in your country.
And I believe in the unadulterated prima materia of consciousness, our true gift from God, the light that cannot be overcome by darkness.
And yet, what I feel is that after the events in 2008, that almighty and dreadful global crash, which Barack Obama elected to bail out banks and financial institutions rather than regarding, respecting, and honoring the individual freedom of American people and protecting them financially.
And then, I suppose, 11 years later, another global crisis, this time the pandemic, the COVID pandemic, that has produced so many questions and so much confusion, but similarly appears to have advanced the kind of decimation.
That you're describing, even when we just limit our discussion to financial matters and financial falsehoods, it seems to me that we're in an extraordinary moment because I saw Barack Obama as some kind of last prince of a particular moment that perhaps began in the 60s.
And I think that now that that has fallen away into nothing, and it might be that we are learning that such a seemingly indefatigable and unique figure as Donald Trump.
Trump is, I don't want to say controlled because my legal status in this country, for one thing, is slightly fragile.
But, like, I want to say that if such seemingly diverse political figures can produce such evidently similar results, what's being exposed is that the system itself has its own telos and the taxonomies of republicanism and the Democrats have to be newly exposed.
That we have to find new language and institute new systems.
And when you said about those geniuses that created the constitution, that sloughed off the mighty British Empire, which, you know, perhaps you can recognize in my accent, and I have some affinity and affiliation with that.
It was in order to create, yes, freedom and the right to pursue happiness.
And I do wonder if the technology that's currently being used, in particular in my country, To surveil people, to control people, to limit people, to potentially, if indeed, central currencies, centralized digital currencies are further instituted to financially persecute, penalize, and control people.
This very technology, it appears to me, could be inverted to realize the vision of your founding fathers in a new way maximum freedom, maximum democracy, minimal government intervention.
But it seems to me that there is.
Isn't a because the system itself is contained and restricted by arguments that prohibit anything but its own sustenance?
That there has to be intercession from outside.
I don't mean outside of America, I mean outside of the conversation.
And I believe that your wealth of experience, coupled with the potential of new technology, founded upon the documents upon which your country was built, somehow holds the solution.
And I want to know what's required from American people to bring that about.
And you're the person I'm asking.
No, it's an individual thing.
It's a moral thing.
And that is beyond, you know, just telling somebody to act in a certain way.
And the founders understood that issue about you have nothing if you don't have a moral people.
So really the cause started with the people, Becoming immoral and wasting and taking all this wealth and consuming it, and we still have wealth in spite of all the destruction.
And the wealth, we were blessed with a lot of wealth, and it also spoiled us to the sense we had the currency of the world and we had all the natural resources, but we had individuals that wanted more and more and more power, and all this stuff went on.
And in 08, things like that happened, they're predictable.
And if you're understanding Austrian economics, you don't be surprised.
There's going to be a bigger one.
This is a warning of what is coming.
And I think that is something that we have to prepare for.
But I believe that you can understand this.
You can see it and you can get unhappy with it's not going fast enough.
But the one thing that the Austrian economist said, especially Mises, if you inflate, that is, If you print money and destroy sound money, interest rates are not stable and you don't know what they really are.
So bubbles are built.
People spend too much money and there's too much debt.
But there's another rule.
The rule of that is it self-destructs.
And we're in the middle of the self-destruction.
And the other thing is that even though you and I might agree on how bad things are, the one thing we don't know is what's going to happen tomorrow or the next day.
Maybe there will be a revival.
in a moral sense that people will accept some of the principles we're talking about.
Or, and I right now think it's not going to be that good, but you should work on that.
We're not going to elect enough people in our Congress to all of a sudden start voting right and cutting the spending.
That isn't it.
They say, why'd you spend so much time in Congress?
It's only because I never expected to go.
And after I went, I figured, well, what should I do?
I thought I'd leave a message and I wouldn't have to stay very long because they wouldn't want to hear it.
But I think that is an understanding that we're capable of the monetary issue.
There's been more talked about that and understanding in the last couple decades.
And the prediction is when they do that and mix it in with a bunch of moral people in the government doing really bad things, that it ends.
And the bubble bursts and something has to be done.
The big problem is when is that going to happen?
You can predict what's going to happen, but you can't say, you know, this is going to happen in two months or two years or 10 years.
But you can't continue to be prosperous and happy and living under conditions like that by just living and borrowing and running up debt and people fighting over the crumbs.
Right now, I think one of the biggest issues that has to be dealt with, and the politicians know this, and that is the The discretion, the difference between the rich and the poor.
There are more and more rich and more poor.
And, you know, the distribution of wealth is not the right thing.
This makes people very, very nervous.
And that's why we will have violence, but we still have to have the spirit of the founders.
And yes, everybody should do it.
You know, when the internet came out and even AI, you know, I look at it as a.
you know, my mind doesn't, you know, immediately grasp all this stuff.
But I do know that something I don't fully understand, especially when I began, that it's a tool that falls on my lap.
And that is I never dreamed I would talk to as many people as I do.
I mean, our numbers keep going up of people interested in hearing what I might have to say on X every day.
So I think there's a roof.
Otherwise, there's no other choice.
But I think the understanding of Austrian economics and the basic principles of liberty and basic principles of no lying and no stealing, everybody knows that from the time of Adam and Eve, you know, that we've been taught that.
So, and the other thing is, I much rather be happy than sad.
So we have conferences.
We had a recent conference.
We had no big crowd, 200 people, 250 people.
But I have a rule.
You better have fun here.
That's what you come for.
You have to enjoy the people that like this.
And I just think our numbers are growing.
But boy, I agree with you on how do you do it?
You got your hands full.
Well, you start with one-on-one.
That's it.
And Walter Jones was a very good friend of mine.
And he was a hawk and was supporting all the wars and everything else.
And he finally was converted to it.
And he, by himself, You know, set out to bring attention to the Iraq war.
And he was astounding on how many people would look and admire him for that.
So I think that, plus the fact when you get to know people that have an agreement, you don't have to fight with them.
And I also accept the advice that was once given to me a long time ago don't be argumentative.
Matter of fact, I don't like to argue at all.
And I will.
Disagree.
People will ask me questions.
But Leonard Reed of the Foundation for Economics once told me, he says, What you need to do first is learn, study and learn, which I'm still trying.
I'm still working on that.
Because if you do, people will come and ask you questions.
And I remember the first time that happened in Congress.
Did I convert hundreds of Congressmen?
No, two or three or four.
But, you know, one person goes a long way.
And the whole thing is that building a new remnant maintains the truth.
Parallel Movements with Crypto00:10:05
We don't know where they are.
We don't know how many they are.
But we know it's right.
And we know it's superior to all this thing that's going on today that has to use force and violence and killing and fraud and all these things to do it.
That can get pretty boring.
And besides, it's wrong.
Yes, we do live in a fallen world.
Dr. Paul, we have to have a quick commercial break because we are determined to live financially responsibly.
When we return from the commercial break, which is a requirement of our economic model, we will have questions and comments from the people in the chat.
So please post your questions in there.
And we will also, I want to ask you particularly about Bitcoin and digital currency and the possibility for new liberty that might come from new forms of currency.
I also want to ask you about Jesus Christ.
And natural law.
So, if you'd be so kind to stay with us, then we'll be back in a matter of moments.
Here's a commercial break.
Thank you.
Who knows when the government will decide to switch you off or hunt you down like a pig?
We're gonna need a currency that's beyond the reach of corrupt global institutions.
Rumble wallets, what you need, and cryptocurrencies are what you require.
You could choose from Bitcoin, stablecoin tied to the US dollar, or tether gold.
That's backed by real gold.
How much control have you got over your money right now in this second?
None.
It's being controlled by the monarchy and the Rothschilds.
Technology has changed everything now, and it's changing how money works.
Crypto started as niche, but now it's going mainstream.
Faster payments, more control, fewer middlemen.
This ain't hype.
This is where it's going.
And Gensler today's.
Easier than you think.
That's where Rumble Wallet comes in.
With Rumble Wallet, you can buy Bitcoin, hold dollar back, stable coins, even digital gold backed by real gold all in one place.
Setup is simple.
It connects with MoonPay.
So you can use your debit card, credit card, or bank account and be up and running in minutes.
Start small $10, $50, $100.
It's not about the amount, it's about getting early and understanding what's coming next.
And once you set up, you can even tip your fumble.
Tip your fumble.
Fumblereaters.
I'm sorry, we're going to have to leave that as it is.
Like me, directly.
Do this now.
Scan the QR code, click the link in the description, download Rumble Wallet.
From there, you can set up your wallet, tap buy, and you're in the game.
Take control of your money and get started with Rumble Wallet today.
Dr. Paul, do you think that digital currencies are one way in which we may be able to decouple ourselves from the inflationary madness that you've spent the first part of our conversation describing?
Yes, it could be, but I don't see it on the horizon being automatic.
And I'm real close to the Bitcoin people, but I'm not up and down and saying, this is it.
Take Bitcoin.
Everybody's going to be using Bitcoin.
I'm not there.
But the reason the Bitcoin people like to listen to what I have to say about Bitcoin is I introduced legislation for competing currencies to make it legal for us to do it.
But one of the first things the Bitcoin leaders have done is go to the Congress and said, they said, we got to get involved and get the regulations lined up so we know what we're doing, whether we're a bond or a stock or whatever.
how are they going to do on taxation?
So they're much too close to the government.
But the principle of the currency is there.
It doesn't fulfill the basic principles going all the way back to Aristotle that you had to have something that you can define and something that you can use if you don't use it as money.
So this is a little bit mysterious for me.
But where I have joined in is it has to be legal and made legal.
It's sort of like having freedom of speech.
Only about 10% of the time we have to monitor what you're saying.
And then besides that, then after that, they have to monitor.
So freedom of speech is sort of like Bitcoin.
They say, yeah, you can have all these.
And there's all these coins out.
And I don't understand them all, but I understand the principle of liberty.
But I also understand don't get too close to the government because it won't fulfill your hopes and dreams of having something that will really compete.
Because history goes against us because legal tender where the government takes control is is well known.
It's happened many, many times.
And that's why the founders knew so often that if you had a central bank, you would have the inflation problems that we have.
And they tried to get us going in the right direction, but we haven't.
And I think, once again, my point is Bitcoin should be legal.
They should stay away from depending on the government to guide us through the rough spots.
That, I think, is a job.
Your country was founded obviously on revolution and revolutionary principles.
Of the original 13 colonies, it seems that many of the leaders were interested in keeping an affinity with my country, Great Britain.
Others wanted more decentralization.
I'm thinking like Patrick Henry, I think is who I'm thinking of, said that there should be more decentralization, that we don't want any federal control.
Now, sometimes I feel that what's required is almost another revolutionary moment, where if these systems of government that you have described, are so intransigent, so controlled, so unwilling to yield,
the tendency towards corruption so evident and obvious, able to withstand peculiar characters and brilliant new movements, the inertia so strong that it seems that the moral decline will continue, the financial decline will continue, the wars will continue, unless there is an external intercession, unless something intercedes.
Now, early in our conversation, you said that you feel optimistic about people.
I share that optimism.
Do you think one possibility is that instead of using the systems, instead of operating within the institutions of government, is it possible that using some of this new technology, we begin parallel systems using, you know, for one example being Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies to establish parallel economies and systems?
Because it seems in a way that the United States of America and the world at large, one could say, is facing a similar moment where empire is so strong, moral decline so ubiquitous, that without something radical and interventionist, we can see where this is heading.
I don't mean that pessimistically.
What I mean to say is that now that we have the technology for different types of currency, now that we have the technology for different types of communication, it's pretty clear one of the lessons I took from the COVID era is the centralized control of information that had existed even 10 years before has begun to unravel,
which meant that people got access to information that prevented them from yielding further authority to, I think, governments that by and large were acting either in bad faith or in ineptitude.
So, my question to you is this could we begin?
To start parallel movements using cryptocurrencies and communicative technology that mean that we don't have to spend all our time sort of competing in environments controlled by a donor class, lobbyists, extraneous powers, supranational powers that can't be undone.
No one's going to ban lobbying tomorrow.
No one's going to say, hey, neither political party or any candidate can accept donations anymore.
No one's going to do that.
Meaningful, meaningful legislation that stops people in Congress finding ways to trade in stocks and shares that they have inside information on.
It seems to me that the system is so decrepit, so decrepit and broken that unless there is another revolutionary moment that I suppose, in the same way that your founding fathers did, implements the available technology information.
Like in their case, I don't know, the ideas of Thomas Paine and whatever other documents and philosophies were foundational.
Seems to me that this is a comparable moment.
And once you've answered that, whether or not you think that there could be an organization that's truly independent again, almost a new declaration of independence, a kind of a revolutionary moment that treats almost the American government the same as the British government.
I don't, you know, what I mean to say is a centralized monarchical force.
I'm not talking about any individual leader like Trump.
My own position is when it comes to the most significant issues of our time, it would have been the same if Kamala Harris had won.
It would have been the same.
There'd still be the war with Iran, there'd still be the same sort of financial problems that you're describing.
So.
It kind of, aren't we being sort of told in this post Epstein moment that the systems themselves have to change or in some ways revert to what they were intended to be?
That there is a negative inertia that, if it's not opposed, is going to lead to perdition.
And it's a shame that that would be allowed because now there is technology and opportunity that didn't exist previously.
Yes, I think that can be the case that's available, but it's not likely to happen.
That it will be a clear cut division or the takeover, you know, of the views that we like.
Contest Between Good and Evil00:04:43
I think there will always be a contest between good and evil.
And I look at some of these things that we're talking about, like nuclear energy.
When you think about it, if nuclear energy was only used for peaceful purposes and to see what would happen, I don't think there'd be a Any need for any worry about any oil or anything else, everybody would probably have a small nuclear generator doing everything.
Anyway, nuclear energy could be a great thing, but it also can destroy the world.
And I think that's the way other things are.
But people's minds are so important.
We had a short little example of what I'm talking about with COVID.
And I don't know what it was like in your country, but it was sinful in the United States.
When they cracked down and People started to realize they're locking us in our house.
They repealed the whole thing of self ownership.
And finally, the people rose up against it because people started standing up.
The ones that got put in prison, physicians that got to prison, were put in prison because they were telling the truth about it.
Yet, eventually, I say the people that was telling the truth about COVID had really, for the most part, won that argument because there's a different attitude now about.
Who should decide?
You don't get to decide to say, you never could take COVID.
You never could take vaccines or something, but we have to teach people that it's your body.
You can make up your own mind.
You can decide what you want to do.
So, uh, that was accomplished.
I, I think it was, it was, uh, a few people stuck to their guns and finally attitude, the prevailing attitude turned, turned against all this government demands on us and people.
They, I think that's, that can happen and be, be, be beneficial.
But it will not, will not be evil because I think, uh, uh, I, I, I think it's been going on for so long.
But that doesn't mean you give up and say it because there's been an awful lot of examples of people living for a long time in peace and prosperity, a high percentage.
Even today, you know, when I talk about how many people are starving in the United States and, and, uh, how many problems we have and how much violence there is.
And, you know, I still look around.
And, you know, me personally, I live in a nice town, but I don't live, you know, in a super wealthy place.
And I look around and all through my life, I've lived in about eight different places, you know, being drafted, you know, I lost my freedoms there.
But being there, but looking around the neighbors, I didn't see the evil in them, but I sure see the evil.
I think it's this monopoly of power over people.
People get, they get addicted.
That's an infection they get.
And no matter how much money they have, if they've earned it, they will earn it illegally.
And yet there's nothing wrong with being successful and making a lot of money.
That you could do with it what you want.
So there's uh, that's just the way life has been.
You know uh, for for all these years that people have recorded this system.
But uh, I think we live in an age of opportunity.
I think the technology uh, just like nuclear or technology, it could be 100 good, 100 bad.
I I think so.
So almost all of life is that it be the, and that goes really back to the basics of of natural law, because the burden is placed on the individual to make these decisions.
And it's never going to be without turmoil.
There always will be how that turmoil is handled.
But all I know is I've come to the conclusion that if it's peace and prosperity that you want, it's much greater in countries that respect and organize under free societies.
If you, the more authoritarian the society is, the worse it is.
So I can, I can't get a, a, an approach to, uh, get, getting the government out of, probably just about everything, have local governments or something going on.
But, uh, there is that, there is that temptation of people that lose control of their good desires.
Voting on Moral Grounds00:05:48
And it, it, I see it always in the Congress.
I've helped quite a few people get to Congress who spoke my language.
I thought, what would that mean?
They'll probably be, Doing the same thing.
But the tinkle, sometimes, I tell you, when a new member came in, if I knew about him, I would predict, you know, after his two or three first week to see how, whether he was going to vote by instructions by the government or whether he was going to vote on moral grounds that he campaigned on.
And not many, they change very quickly because they're told out of pragmatism, well, you want on this committee, don't you?
You want reelected, don't you?
We're going to raise the money for this and on and on.
You know, so it's the individual making those moral choices.
It's probably the most important thing that will determine our future.
Dr. Paul Tulsi Gabbard came on the show a while ago and said that when she first was in Congress, she felt like she was entering into some kind of sausage machine where she was trotted through various lobbyists' offices and given all manner of opportunity and was tantalized.
You know, do this.
This is that lobbyist.
This is that donor.
Have you.
So, I know that what you're telling me is true that there's a kind of Mr. Smith goes to Washington, the documentary is the experience of basically anyone who gets involved in American politics.
Could you tell me when, during your long career in politics, when have you felt and who particularly have you felt that you are around greatness and people that have made a difference and are trying to make a difference?
And are they actual presidents?
Or are they people that are in Congress?
Or are they activists and campaigners?
When have you felt that you're around people that are able to convey principles effectively and meaningfully, that are able to make a difference?
Who?
I think the atmosphere today is a lot worse than it was when I was there, you know, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, because I would practice deliberately doing what I believed in.
And that is when somebody, the one thing I black my mind out to is, are they a Republican or a Democrat?
I don't give them.
I don't stereotype them.
But I can remember one that was assumed to be liberal, all big government stuff.
And he gave a five-minute speech at the end of the day, which, you know, a special order.
And everything he said, I liked.
And I called him, and I knew I'm to say hello.
But I called him in his office that next day, and he wasn't in.
I left a message.
And I remember the first vote, I was on the floor, and he came over to me rather deliberately.
And he wanted to know what I called him about.
And I said, I liked your speech.
I agreed with that.
And, you know, after that, he was one of the individuals that voted against going to war in Iraq.
And we became good friends.
And yet he was somebody I didn't know.
So all of a sudden, people change.
And I thought I met a lot of people like that.
But I think I would be less satisfied today.
with what I hear.
I just hear too much, but I hope the ending of this story is better, and that is the way the president's treating Thomas Massey.
That is the kind of stuff I don't like because I'm always looking for something I agree with him on, and the other thing that I have a personal rule on and said, why don't you do this is, why do you do this?
Just ask them, recognize them, and give them a feeling that he cares.
He cares about it.
He wants to know what I'm going to do.
And there's a big difference on how you handle that.
And so I never, there were some other stories there that I enjoyed because they were giving me a boost.
And they didn't, they might punish the Congress or the Republican Party, everybody else, and said, except Ron Paul, he doesn't have to because we know what he's going to do.
So there are some payments that you get.
And that's one of mine was just the satisfaction that people would listen.
But I had no power.
I listened to a point, but no, I had no clout at all.
And yet I felt comfortable.
I'm glad that Thomas Massey's name has come up.
I've been sent this by Christina, actually, our mutual friend says that Ed Galrain, who is the candidate standing against him in Kentucky, has received.
$9.8 million of support from APAC.
And I suppose it's precisely that kind of support that indicates that there could be interests beyond the interests of the American people, whether it's coming from APAC or any other lobbying interest.
It seems like that's the type of intervention that your country could do without.
Well, you know, there was a time when that was very, very important and it was stereotyped.
And if you.
They knew if they challenged somebody that was supported by AIPAC, that you'd be declared, oh, he must be anti-Semitic and this sort of thing.
Muddied Distribution of Wealth00:08:37
And yet, I think that it's something that people now are looking at differently because of the Palestinian war and the bombing.
So there is a division now.
So something is better.
People are being more objective of all of this.
And I keep In spite of all the wars, which I think makes things worse, I quite frankly believe that support financially and doing all this for Israel on long terms is going to hurt Israel.
And yet I think that they can get along probably, but it is something that we create and yet it's changing right now.
The attitude has changed and that's why the Democratic Party is sort of.
Split on this.
You know, why should we support the Democrats?
Because they pretend they're against the wars.
And just think of all the wars and fighting and killing, you know, in Palestine.
It's horrible.
Doctor, we have some questions now that our producer, Jake, will read from the comments on our show.
So these are some of the people that are watching and listening questions.
And this is Jake, our producer, that you can maybe see on your screen.
How are you?
This is from our Rumble chat, Stephanie48.
She said, What is the average senior citizen living on earned Social Security to do?
Where is our power when wealth has evaded us and that has been done purposely?
Did you hear that question, Doctor?
Yeah, I'm not quite sure what he means, but the distribution of wealth becomes really muddied because in a libertarian society, a free market, you wouldn't have this.
But, you know, I was born the same year they gave Social Security.
But it is, Social Security and all those programs probably helped the middle class more than the poor people.
This is the most wicked thing about the system we have of the money because no one, what program you're talking about is a transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor because the rich aren't complaining about the cost of a loaf of bread.
And it's done that.
Rather purposely, but they pass out, they keep the masses satisfied by giving out some largesse and giving them bonuses.
But the one thing that has been documented is that if politicians continue to do what they do, give money to certain groups so that they'll vote for them, and if they do that, they never catch up because the Debt that's run up and the inflation prices go up faster than all the bonuses that they give.
So it's a losing battle.
That's why you have to have a clear understanding why people do better with freedom rather than depending on a few clowns up in Washington distributing the wealth.
Now there's, uh, now there's a big, big charge now checking all these programs because there's so much fraud.
There's, you know, they, you know, he took money out of the kitty and that was supposed to help, help the kids.
But what about the money they take out of the middle class?
I think the fraud is the system.
But it gets worse when they go and take the money out of the money that was supposed to go to the poor people.
That's why independent wealth and earnings, people get wealthier, and people don't have enough confidence that everybody's better off under those differences.
But there are statistics to show that the more the government is there and the more that they want to help by redistributing wealth, the worse things get.
Do you have another question there, beloved Jake?
Thank you, Doctor.
Um, a question here from Grammy Anon.
It said, The left have surely bastardized the word progressive, they've made it a dirty word.
So, what does progressive mean to you?
I've always been disappointed.
I think the gentleman's uh describing something I was disappointed in always because uh, you know, I think of myself as being liberal, but if you say, I remember saying that in one of my early campaigns, the Republican Party came up, And liberal to me was meant what the classical.
Economist called liberal and somebody whispered here, don't ever use that word liberal again, because that means you were like a socialist.
So yeah, the liberal, uh the, the name is, is is important, and uh, I think that uh the, the liberals or the progressive is the same way I, i'd like to think i'm progressive in many ways but uh, you know, like being non-violent and looking for change and refusing to use anybody else to do my bidding.
So progressive, I think, is a good word.
What if you were opposed to war and these kind of things?
I'd say that is progressive, but they turn it around and the right, the conservatives are responsible for this because they have labeled it that.
If you say they put on the word progressive, oh, they have to be bad people.
And I probably do make a mistake there too because I talk about the progressive era.
which was not progressive, really ushered in the 20th century.
And the universities are what really converted so many people into the system of government that we're suffering from right now.
So I think the answer is there, too.
That's why I'm a strong believer in private schools, no government schools.
I have a homeschooling group.
Yes, small in number, but they're very, very influential when they go through and get a real education.
And I think that pointing that out about the definition of liberal progressive is very important.
But I would draw just the definition as much as what you barely believe in.
Thank you.
We got one more from KevMo80.
It said, I've seen that many central banks are buying gold and silver at higher rates than in the past.
Is this an indication of our future currency backing?
Is that what gives you hope?
You know, in a way, maybe, but, you know, we weren't allowed to own gold in this country for 43 years.
You know, when Roosevelt took it off and we weren't able to get it re-legalized where people owned it was in 1975.
And that came out of the Gold Commission report, which was established, you know, as a, under the Gold Commission to recognize at least many of the coins.
Through the 70s, we had a terrible financial situation, but I think we took a major step in the right direction.
They re legalized gold.
But of course, ironically or probably expectedly, the day that it was made legal, I remember the day very clear because everybody thought everybody's going to run out and buy gold.
But they had already, the buyers and the people who believed it already bought the gold.
So gold didn't go up.
But the IMF and our treasury dumped billions of dollars of gold to keep the price down.
So they were manipulated.
But nevertheless, they've re-legalized gold.
And people now, they can vote with their gold.
They can be on their own gold standard.
They can save in gold.
And the worse these financial problems get, the depreciation of the dollar, you know, the more your gold is protected.
But the big thing is you got to protect against the government because, yes, they took it away from us.
They stole it from the American people and took all those years to get back.
They say, well, they're never going to do that again.
Empire of Lies00:07:17
I agree.
They probably won't ever do it again.
But they might say, well, if you start spending your gold, You have to pay 50% tax on your gold as you spend it, something like that.
So it's back to the basic principle of people understanding what non aggression is, no violence, and understanding what ownership means of your own body and your own thoughts.
If you have all these wonderful liberties, you have to know one thing that you can't hurt other people.
And that would make a wonderful world as far as I'm concerned.
Dr. Paul, are those principles derived from faith?
To have absolute principles, is there a requirement for absolute faith in God?
Are you asking me personally about my faith?
Yes.
Well, I was born in a Christian family and I remained there, raised all my children in a Christian home and all Christians.
And I think.
Theology is an interesting subject that I deal with internally as much as anything, because for some reason, I say, I don't wear my religion on my sleeve like, you know, I'm holier than you.
So I don't push it that way, but I try to practice what I do that would reflect on what I'm saying, that, oh, he's probably a Christian, the way he talks.
And our family is, I remain a strong believer in Christianity.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you very much.
I came to Christ pretty recently.
And I suppose the reason I ask is obviously because it appears that your constitution is to some degree formulated around Christian ideas and absent of them.
I wonder if it can be sustained or practiced.
And also because I'm, in a way, still trying to work out how to handle the, you know, like you've talked about it being kind of quite private or at least not explicit or evangelical in your case.
But because one of the things that's continually come up in this conversation is moral decline in accompaniment with the principle of freedom and financial freedom and limiting government.
Intervention, I wonder about authority.
I wonder that I suppose it seems to me that the government is assuming the authority of a kind of God and behaving like a kind of God.
These people, it's okay to kill.
These people, you cannot kill.
These people can be humiliated.
These people can't be humiliated.
And indeed, even one might say the idea of welfare is a bureaucratization of charity.
So I guess that's the reason that I asked.
I suppose what you're saying is that faith is a matter, a personal matter that people should be able to recognize through your actions rather than.
Yeah.
Yes, I'd favor that.
And I think the world is divided up, in my estimation, into two categories, neither side being pure and nobody achieves either end.
And that is that some people, and I want to put myself into it, we seek to know the truth.
And that means you have to do your best job in finding out, you know, if you're in politics, tell the truth all the time.
And I think basically everybody understands telling truth is pretty good.
But there are others who believe that lying is good and it is not a moral system.
And nihilism is something that you lie whenever you want because you can't know what the truth is.
And I think that exists.
And also, I think the founders, you know, they don't mention Christianity to the best of my knowledge, but they did mention they strongly indicated there was a deity and there was a God.
And I think that that is important.
But the Constitution, the way I read it, is that the individual has a right to practice whatever religion they want.
And I think that's the way to do it.
It's an individual right.
It's not a church right.
I don't like the combination of the religious being in charge of the government, the combination.
I know there's examples that things worked out pretty well, but basically speaking, I think it has to be an individual right, and you should never be punished for that, to do that.
And of course, right now, I think there is.
I think the side that's having momentum right now are the ones that are nihilistic, that lying is pretty good.
I think our government lies to it.
That's a secret you have.
I think they lie to us a lot.
I think that's a big problem.
Except I think they said in the Soviet system, all the citizens in Russia in the Soviet system knew the government always lied.
Sometimes I think.
And yet, the Soviet system broke apart in a miraculous way.
It just fell apart, and we didn't even have to fulfill a nuclear exchange, which we were warned about in the 60s.
So I think that nihilism maybe that'll help us do that, that people will finally get tired of the lies, and they are.
People are tired.
They're more tired now of what's going on than I remember.
It was bad with Vietnam, but I think it's much more sinister now about the lying they tell.
Nobody expects that you could get punished these days.
It used to be like we were accused of anti Semitism.
No, if you tell the truth of what we're supposed to do and what we promised and what the Constitution says, you become the enemy.
Truth is treason in an empire of lies.
And I believe that.
Thank you for continuing to tell the truth in an empire of lies.
Truth is Treason00:01:17
Thank you for your example and thank you for your time today.
Thanks for being so patient with me and for the people that post questions.
And thank you, Dr. Rumpole, for continuing to be an example of what can be achieved through diligence and abeyance to simple principles like truth telling.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
God bless you, Doctor.
God bless you.
Well, we will be back, of course, on, what day is this now?
Wednesday.
We'll be back on Friday.
Not with more of the same, but with more of the different.
Thank you very much for your time today.
Remember that How to Become Christian in Seven Days by me, I wrote that, is available now.
There's a link in the description so you can get that from Tucker Carlson Books.
We've got some fantastic stuff coming up.
I'm going to be talking to Jeremiah Johnson, who's brilliant at describing the historicity of Christ, exploring like artifacts and evidence for the historical Christ and how the historical Christ aligns with the political and religious God, man, deity.
We'll be talking to him later on this week.
And so I'll see you on Friday.
If you don't get Rumble Premium yet, get Rumble Premium now.
You get additional content for us.
And thanks again to Doc. Ron Paul for joining us today.
See you next time, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.